LaPrease would be entitled to benefits if he submitted proof upon which Unum determined that he “is limited from performing the material and substantial duties of [his] regular occupation due to [his] sickness or injury; and [he has] a 20% or more loss in [his] indexed monthly earnings due to the same sickness or injury.” UACL 00232. Based on the findings of its consulting physicians, Unum determined that Mr. La-Prease did not meet this definition of disabled. Unum has no obligation to give more weight to the opinions of Mr. La-Prease’s treating physicians than to its own physicians, as long as such evidence is credible. Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, 538 U.S. 822, 829-34, 123 S.Ct. 1965, 155 L.Ed.2d 1034 (2003); Gannon v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 360 F.3d 211, 214 (1st Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Mr. LaPrease has not submitted any evidence
recognizing duty by examining physician even absent formal physicianpatient relationship holding that the evidence relied on by the insurer need not include the opinion of an examining physician holding that where a treating physicians opinion is contradicted by a consulting physician the alj must explain on the record the reasons for rejecting the opinion of the treating physician holding physician entitled to recover attorneys fees actually paid by malpractice insurer because physician was personally liable in the first instance holding that an insurer had conclusively established a reasonable basis for denying a claim when it relied on an experts opinion even though another expert had expressed a conflicting opinion