Smith v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company

Filing 27

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 24 . It is ordered granting (Doc. 17 ) Mutual of Omaha's Motion for Decision on the Administrative Record; and denying (Doc. 18 ) Ms. Smith's Motion for Summary Judgment. It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment in favor of Defendant Mutual of Omaha and close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Raner C Collins on 8/4/14. (KAH)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Laurie Smith, 10 No. CV-13-00405-TUC-RCC Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 ORDER Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Before the Court are Mutual of Omaha’s Motion for Decision on the 16 Administrative Order (Doc. 17), Ms. Smith’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 18), 17 and Magistrate Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation on these two motions (Doc. 18 24). 19 documents and conducted a de novo of the underlying facts in this case. The Court is 20 prepared to adopt Magistrate Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation and hereby 21 incorporates Doc. 24 by reference. 22 Ms. Smith’s Objections to Magistrate Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation 23 Ms. Smith contends that Magistrate Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation 24 reaches findings which are not supported by the record due in part to mistakes of fact and 25 conclusions based on an evaluation of the record. (Doc. 25). Specifically, Ms. Smith 26 contends that 1) Judge Rateau’s findings that there were no tests conducted after January 27 2012 is incorrect, 2) Dr. Sullivan’s and not Dr. Scherer’s opinions as to Ms. Smith’s 28 disability should be controlling, and 3) the Administrator’s Review was Thorough but The Court has reviewed all of the responses, replies and objections to these 1 Incorrect, to the effect that the Magistrate’s Report has multiple errors and the Court 2 should instead find in favor of Ms. Smith. 3 Ms. Smith Was Not Entitled to Short-Term Disability Benefits After March 26, 2012 4 Upon the Court’s de novo review of all relevant pleadings and the 282 page 5 administrative record submitted, the Court finds that Ms. Smith was not entitled to short- 6 term disability benefits after March 26, 2012. 7 Magistrate Judge Rateau carefully outlined and addressed all of Ms. Smith’s 8 concerns and contentions in her Report and Recommendation. As the Court now sees it, 9 this case essentially boils down to Dr. Scherer’s and Dr. Sullivan’s competing opinions 10 on whether Ms. Smith was disabled or could perform her job duties with modifications. 11 As Magistrate Judge Rateau correctly found, Dr. Scherer’s opinion could be afforded 12 controlling weight in determining that Ms. Smith was not disabled during the relevant 13 time period. 14 Ms. Smith’s arguments to the contrary are not persuasive. First, while there are 15 records of Ms. Smith’s abnormal CPK levels conducted after January 2012, this fact 16 alone does nothing to undermine Dr. Scherer’s explanation that “[e]levated CPK/aldolase 17 in themselves are not a diagnostic of any specific disorder, and although it can be seen in 18 a variety of neuromuscular conditions, it can also be a normal result of muscle trauma 19 and exercise,” or, more importantly, Dr. Scherer’s observations that Ms. Smith “moved 20 about with ease, and did not have any difficulty walking, standing up from the chair, 21 climbing or moving around on the exam table” and “did not appear to be in any kind of 22 distress.” 23 Similarly, Ms. Smith’s arguments that Dr. Sullivan’s opinions should be 24 controlling instead of Dr. Scherer’s are not persuasive. The Court here agrees with 25 Magistrate Judge Rateu’s finding that while Ms. Smith’s contention that Dr. Scherer’s 26 opinions as to Ms. Smith’s veracity are in part due to animosity is reasonable, Dr. 27 Scherer’s objective records of Ms. Smith’s ability to move during her examination are 28 also reasonable. As to Ms. Smith’s contention that Dr. Sullivan’s opinion should be -2- 1 afforded controlling weight because it is backed by Ms. Smith’s irregular lab results, the 2 Court finds this argument unpersuasive because Dr. Scherer’s report also acknowledges 3 and explains these irregular lab results to reach a different conclusion. 4 Finally, Ms. Smith’s arguments that the administrator’s review was incorrect 5 because it did not afford sufficient weight to Dr. Sullivan’s opinions that Ms. Smith was 6 at risk for kidney failure if she were not careful due to her CPK and myoglobin levels is 7 unpersuasive because the administrator analyzed the record in total and evaluated the 8 conflicting opinions. 9 While there is no doubt Ms. Smith was in pain and had abnormal lab results, Ms. 10 Smith failed to meet her burden that she was disabled per the plan’s definition on the 11 relevant dates. Accordingly, 12 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED adopting Magistrate Judge Rateau’s Report and 13 Recommendation (Doc. 24); granting (Doc. 17) Mutual of Omaha’s Motion for Decision 14 on the Administrative Record; and denying (Doc. 18) Ms. Smith’s Motion for Summary 15 Judgment. 16 17 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment in favor of Defendant Mutual of Omaha and close this case. Dated this 4th day of August, 2014. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?