From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Whealen v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Page 444
Sep 16, 2009
332 F. App'x 443 (9th Cir. 2009)

Opinion

Nos. 07-56249, 07-56484.

Submitted September 2, 2009.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed September 16, 2009.

Glenn R. Kantor, Kantor Kantor, LLP, Northridge, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Edith Sanchez Shea, Esquire, Burke, Williams Sorensen, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-06-04948-PSG.

Before: FERNANDEZ and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and ENGLAND, District Judge.

The Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of California, sitting by designation.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.


Hartford Life Accident Insurance Company and Allstate Insurance Company Long Term Disability Plan ("Plan") appeal the district court's judgment awarding long term disability benefits to Kathleen Whealen. We affirm.

The district court did not err when it determined that it was required to apply skeptical abuse of discretion review to Hartford's decision to terminate Whealen's long term disability benefits under the Plan. See Metro. Life Ins. -Co. v. Glenn, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 128 S.Ct. 2343, 2350-61, 171 L.Ed.2d 299 (2008); Abatie v. Alta Health Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 968-69 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc); see also Pannebecker v. Liberty Life Assur. Co. of Boston, 542 F.3d 1213, 1218 (9th Cir. 2008). Nor did the district court err in determining that Hartford wrongfully reached its decision to terminate those benefits when it arbitrarily failed to credit the reliable evidence of Whealen's physical and cognitive problems. See Jordan v. Northrop Grumman Corp. Welfare Benefit Plan, 370 F.3d 869, 879 (9th Cir. 2004), abrogated in part by Abatie, 458 F.3d at 969; Booton v. Lockheed Med. Benefit Plan, 110 F.3d 1461, 1465 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Saffon v. Wells Fargo Co. Long Term Disability Plan, 522 F.3d 863, 872-73 (9th Cir. 2008).

We, of course, agree that the opinions of Whealen's physicians were not entitled to special deference. See Black Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, 538 U.S. 822, 829, 123 S.Ct. 1965, 1969, 155 L.Ed.2d 1034 (2003). That does not mean that Hartford could arbitrarily reject what those physicians had to say. Id. at 834, 123 S.Ct. at 1972.

Finally, the district court did not err when it determined that Whealen was the prevailing party and awarded attorney's fees to her. See Carpenters Health Welfare Trust v. Vonderharr, 384 F.3d 667, 674 (9th Cir. 2004).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Whealen v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Page 444
Sep 16, 2009
332 F. App'x 443 (9th Cir. 2009)
Case details for

Whealen v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance

Case Details

Full title:Kathleen WHEALEN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HARTFORD LIFE ACCIDENT INSURANCE…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Page 444

Date published: Sep 16, 2009

Citations

332 F. App'x 443 (9th Cir. 2009)