Langridge v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 38

ORDER RE STANDARD OF REVIEW by Judge Chhabria denying 28 Motion. (vclc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2016)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSICA LANGRIDGE,

Case No. 15-cv-04235-VC

Plaintiff,
ORDER RE STANDARD OF REVIEW

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 28
U.S. ROCHE HEALTH AND WELFARE
BENEFITS VEBA PLAN,
Defendant.

The defendant has failed to overcome the default presumption that a de novo standard of
review applies in ERISA denial-of-benefits cases. See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch,
489 U.S. 101, 115 (1989). The Genentech benefits plan didn't vest the claims administrator – the
entity that actually denied Langridge's claim – with discretion to interpret the plan's terms. The
plan vested the plan administrator with that power, and the plan administrator never properly
delegated it. Taylor Decl., Ex. A (Dkt. 28-2) at 73-74; cf. Shane v. Albertson's Inc., 504 F.3d
1166, 1170 (9th Cir. 2007). The defendant points to a provision in the plan description requiring
claimants to "submit requested proof of continuing Disability . . . satisfactory to the Claims
Administrator within the time period specified by the Claims Administrator." Supp. Taylor
Decl., Ex. A (Dkt. 32-2) at 1358. But this suggests a delegation of administrative discretion –
the limited authority to decide what records are acceptable, or to set a quantum of proof – rather
than the broader power to interpret the plan's terms. See Kearney v. Standard Ins. Co., 175 F.3d
1084, 1089 (9th Cir. 1999). And in any event, ERISA requires more than an implication to
displace de novo review.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 2, 2016
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

2