Nagy v. Group Long Term Disability Plan For Employees of Oracle America, Inc. et al

Filing 94

JUDGMENT. ***Civil Case Terminated.*** Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 6/9/2016. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/9/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

LAW OFFICES OF LAURENCE F. PADWAY
Laurence F. Padway (SBN 89314)
1516 Oak Street, Suite 109
Alameda, CA 94501
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff David Nagy
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
Michael B. Bernacchi (SBN 163657)
E-mail: [e-mail]
444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2953
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
Group Long Term Disability Plan for
Employees of Oracle America, Inc. and
Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company

11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

15
16

DAVE NAGY,

Case No. 14-CV-00038-HSG
Plaintiff,

17
18

v.

19

GROUP LONG TERM
DISABILITY PLAN FOR
EMPLOYEES OF ORACLE
AMERICA, INC., and HARTFORD
LIFE AND ACCIDENT
INSURANCE COMPANY,

JUDGMENT

20
21
22

Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.

Defendants.

23
24
25

This Court conducted a bench trial in this action on April 13, 2015.

26

Lawrence F. Padway of Law Offices of Laurence F. Padway appeared on behalf of

27

Plaintiff David Nagy (“Nagy”) and Michael B. Bernacchi of Burke, Williams &

28

Sorensen, LLP appeared on behalf of Defendants Group Long Term Disability Plan

B URKE , W ILLIAMS &
S ORENS EN , LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES

LA #4839-9210-4242 v1

-1-

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

1
2
3
4
5
6

for Employees of Oracle America, Inc. (the “Plan”) and Hartford Life and Accident
Insurance Company (“Harford”) (collectively “Defendants”). The parties submitted
supplemental briefing on April 17, 2015; April 27, 2015; June 19, 2015; June 29,
2015; and November 9, 2015. On April 22, 2016, the Court issued its Order for
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Dkt. No. 89) (“Order”), overturning
Hartford’s denial of long-term disability (“LTD”) benefits.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

After considering the opening and responding trial briefs submitted by the
parties, the Administrative Record submitted by Defendants, Nagy’s requests for
the Court to consider extrinsic evidence, Defendants’ objections thereto, the parties’
supplemental briefing, all accompanying filings, the oral arguments of counsel,
and all other matters presented to the Court, for all of the reasons presented
in the Court’s Order, Judgment is entered in favor of Nagy and against Defendants
in accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally,
the Court makes the following findings, judgments and orders:

15
16
17
18
19

1.

Policy from September 13, 2011, until at least January 16, 2013, when Hartford
denied Nagy’s LTD claim. Hartford's denial of benefits on that date is therefore
vacated.

20
21
22
23
24

2.

Nagy is awarded the amount of “own occupation” LTD benefits due

payable from December 12, 2011 1 to December 11, 2013, which the parties agree is
$31,106.70. Nagy is awarded prejudgment interest in the amount of $5,000 for the
benefits during this period based on the parties’ agreement, without waiver of
Defendants’ appeal rights.

25
26

Nagy has been experiencing “Total Disability” as defined under the

3.

Nagy’s claim is remanded to Hartford for further proceedings in

accordance with the Court’s April 22, 2016 Order to determine whether Nagy is

27
28
B URKE , W ILLIAMS &
S ORENS EN , LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES

1

The claim is subject to a 90-day elimination period.

LA #4839-9210-4242 v1

-2-

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

entitled to benefits under the “any occupation” standard. Hartford’s decision shall
be made within 90 days of the Court’s April 22, 2016 Order, absent tolling pursuant
to ERISA regulations, the parties’ stipulation and/or a further order of this Court.
The Court shall retain jurisdiction of the case pending such determination, only for
the purpose of enforcing the Court’s Order that a determination be made within 90
days of the Court’s April 22, 2016 Order. To the extent a dispute arises concerning
the substance of the determination, the parties shall treat that dispute as separate
from the instant action, though, should a complaint be filed in this Court, Plaintiff
may seek relation to the instant action pursuant to the Court’s local rules.
4.

The parties shall file, by July 22, 2016, a joint report to the Court

stating whether the matter has been resolved. If the parties’ report states that the
matter has been resolved, the Clerk shall be directed to close the Court’s file.
Otherwise, the Court shall schedule a case management conference.
5.

Nagy may file a motion to recover his attorneys’ fees and costs in this

action. The parties agree that the time to file any such motion for attorneys' fees
and costs shall be extended to 21 days following the entry of judgment.
6.

In accordance with Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, Judgment is entered in Nagy’s favor and against Defendants consistent
herewith, as of the date the Clerk notates this Judgment in the civil docket.

20
21
22

Dated: 6/9/2016

23

________________________________
Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
B URKE , W ILLIAMS &
S ORENS EN , LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES

LA #4839-9210-4242 v1

-3-

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT