Summary
finding no abuse of discretion in plan administrator's "decision to rely upon its consultants rather than upon the opinions of [the plaintiff's] physicians, or, ultimately, in its consideration of the consulting physicians' opinions during its handling of the review process"
Summary of this case from Sorger v. Novartis Corp. Death Benefit & Disability PlanOpinion
No. 07-15238.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed December 5, 2008.
Scott Kalkin, Roboostoff Kalkin, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Andrew M. Altschul, Esq., Altschul Law Office, PC, Portland, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Samuel Conti, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-05-04284-SC.
Before: FERNANDEZ, T.G. NELSON, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Bruce Kaiser appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Standard Insurance Company and the e-Bay, Inc., Long Term Disability Insurance Plan in Kaiser's action alleging that Standard abused its discretion when it failed to extend long term disability benefits to him. We affirm.
The district court was aware of the need to take Standard's inherent conflict of interest into account; it was well aware of and cited to our explication of the appropriate standard in Abatie v. Alta Health Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 967-69 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc). The Supreme Court's later decision did not affect that explication for purposes of this case. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 128 S.Ct. 2343, 2350-51, 171 L.Ed.2d 299 (2008).
Upon review of the record, we have determined that the district court did not err when it decided that Standard's denial of Kaiser's long term disability claim was not an abuse of discretion. For example, there was no abuse in Standard's use of the "own occupation" limitation, or in its decision to rely upon its consultants rather than upon the opinions of Kaiser's physicians, or, ultimately, in its consideration of the consulting physicians' opinions during its handling of the review process.
We recognize that the district court did make some infelicitous references based on pre- Abatie cases. See Boyd v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Players Ret. Plan, 410 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2005); Zavora v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 145 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. 1998). However, on this record that did not affect the fact that the court knew it was required to consider Standard's conflict of interest; it did so, but still found no abuse of discretion.
Standard was not required to give special deference to Kaiser's treating physicians. See Black Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, 538 U.S. 822, 834, 123 S.Ct. 1965, 1972, 155 L.Ed.2d 1034 (2003); Jordan v. Northrop Grumman Corp. Welfare Benefit Plan, 370 F.3d 869, 878-79 (9th Cir. 2004).
AFFIRMED.