T. S. ELLIS, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER

T. S. ELLIS, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

For the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion issued this same day, It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's objections to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 25) are SUSTAINED IN PART AND OVERRULED IN PART. Specifically, Defendant's objection that the Report and Recommendation improperly concluded that Defendant adopted the wrong definition of Plaintiff s “regular occupation” is SUSTAINED. All of Defendant's other objections to the Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED.

It is further ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 24) is ADOPTED IN PART. The Report is adopted with respect to its conclusion that Defendant abused its discretion in failing to consider the risk of future harm when determining whether Plaintiff was entitled to long-term disability benefits. The Report is not adopted with respect to its conclusion that Defendant used the wrong definition of Plaintiff's “regular occupation.”

It is further ORDERED that the parties cross-motions for summary judgment (Dkts. 10, 13) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically,

• Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 13) is GRANTED insofar as the plan administrator abused its discretion in failing to consider the risk of future harm, but DENIED insofar as the administrator did not abuse its discretion in defining Plaintiff's

“regular occupation” broadly as an “attorney." Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is also DENIED insofar as Plaintiff seeks entry of judgment.

• Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 10) is GRANTED insofar as Defendant did not abuse its discretion in defining Plaintiff's “regular occupation" broadly as an “attorney,” but DENIED insofar as Defendant did abuse its discretion in failing to consider the risk of future harm to Plaintiffs cardiac condition in making the disability determination. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is also DENIED insofar as Defendant seeks entry of judgment.

It is further ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to Defendant for further consideration by the ERISA plan administrator of whether there exist other attorney positions that Plaintiff could perform without incurring a risk to his cardiac health.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.