In this appeal, appellant Frederick Dahlmeier (“Dahlmeier”) argues that the district court erred in granting appellee Fortis Benefits Insurance Company’s (“Fortis Benefits”) motion for summary judgment on the basis of his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We disagree and affirm.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Perrino v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 209 F.3d 1309, 1314-15 (11th Cir. 2000).

Here, it is undisputed that Dahlmeier failed to exhaust the administrative remedy outlined in the Group Claim Denial Review Procedure. “Our law is well-settled that ‘plaintiffs in ERISA actions must exhaust available remedies before suing in federal court.’ ” Id. at 1315 (quoting Counts v. Amer. Gen. Life & Accident Ins. Co., 111 F.3d 105, 108 (11th Cir. 1997)). “However, a district court has the sound discretion to excuse the exhaustion requirement when resort to administrative remedies would be futile or the remedy inadequate, ... or where a claimant is denied meaningful access to the administrative review scheme in place.” Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “The decision of a district court to apply or not apply the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement for ERISA claims is a highly discretionary decision which we review only for a clear abuse of discretion.” Id. at 1315.

After carefidly reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the exhaustion requirement to Dahlmeier’s claim. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment. 1

AFFIRMED.