Timm v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America

Filing 20

ORDER adopting in part 17 Report and Recommendation: The 18 Objections are overruled. The final decision of Unum Life is affirmed and the 2 Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Linda R Reade on 8/6/2018. (skm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
CENTRAL DIVISION

JEREMY J. TIMM,
Plaintiff,

No. 17-CV-3019-LRR

vs.

ORDER

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
____________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

III.

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

IV.

STANDARD OF REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
A.
B.

V.

Review of Final Decision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Review of Report and Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
A.
B.
C.
D.

The Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Timm’s Medical History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Unum Life’s Denial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Timm’s Appeal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5
5
7
8

VI.

ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

VII.

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
I. INTRODUCTION
The matter before the court is Plaintiff Jeremy J. Timm’s Objections (docket no.

18) to United States Chief Magistrate Judge C.J. Williams’s Report and Recommendation
(docket no. 17), which recommends that the court affirm Defendant Unum Life Insurance
Company of America’s (“Unum Life”) final decision to deny Timm long term disability

benefits.
II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 16, 2017, Timm filed the Complaint (docket no. 2). In the Complaint,
Timm claims that Unum Life violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (“ERISA”) when it denied his application for long term disability benefits under the
Cyclone Contracting Long Term Disability Policy. On April 21, 2017, Unum Life filed
an Answer (docket no. 5) generally denying liability and asserting several affirmative
defenses. On October 26, 2017, Timm filed the Plaintiff’s Brief (docket no. 13). On
December 22, 2017, Unum Life filed the Defendant’s Brief (docket no. 14). On February
27, 2018, Timm filed a Reply (docket no. 15). The matter was referred to Judge
Williams. On April 9, 2018, Judge Williams issued the Report and Recommendation,
which recommends that the court affirm the final decision of Unum Life to deny Timm
long term disability benefits. On April 23, 2018, Timm filed the Objections. On May 4,
2018, Unum Life filed the Response to Objections (docket no. 19). Neither party has
requested oral argument and the court finds that oral argument is unnecessary. The matter
is fully submitted and ready for decision.
III. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
The court has jurisdiction over the instant action because it arises under ERISA, 29
U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States.”).
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A. Review of Final Decision
“ERISA provides a plan beneficiary with the right to judicial review of a benefits
determination.” Shelton v. ContiGroup Cos., Inc., 285 F.3d 640, 642 (8th Cir. 2002)
(quoting Woo v. Deluxe Corp., 144 F.3d 1157, 1160 (8th Cir. 1998)). A district court

2

must review a denial of benefits “under a de novo standard unless the benefit plan gives
the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits
or to construe the terms of the plan.” Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S.
101, 115 (1989). “When a plan gives discretion to the plan administrator, then a plan
administrator’s decision is reviewed judicially for an abuse of discretion.” Ortlieb v.
United HealthCare Choice Plans, 387 F.3d 778, 781 (8th Cir. 2004). “Under an abuse
of discretion standard of review, a plan administrator’s decision will stand if reasonable;
‘i.e., supported by substantial evidence.’” Id. (quoting Fletcher-Merrit v. NorAm Energy
Corp., 250 F.3d 1174, 1179 (8th Cir. 2001)). The court does “not ‘substitute [its] own
weighing of the evidence for that of the administrator.’”

Gerhardt v. Liberty Life

Assurance Co. of Boston, 736 F.3d 777, 780 (8th Cir. 2013) (quoting Sahulka v. Lucent
Techs., Inc., 206 F.3d 763, 769-70 (8th Cir. 2000)). “This deferential standard reflects
[the] general hesitancy to interfere with the administration of a benefits plan.” Shelton,
285 F.3d at 642 (quoting Layes v. Mead Corp., 132 F.3d 1246, 1250 (8th Cir. 1998)).
The court must affirm the plan administrator’s decision “if a reasonable person
could have reached a similar decision, given the evidence before him, not that a reasonable
person would have reached that decision.” Prezioso v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 748
F.3d 797, 805 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Ferrari v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n, 278 F.3d
801, 807 (8th Cir. 2002)). “Any reasonable decision will stand, even if the court would
interpret the language differently as an original matter.” Manning v. Am. Republic Ins.
Co., 604 F.3d 1030, 1038 (8th Cir. 2010). A decision is reasonable if it supported by
substantial evidence. See Wilcox v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, 552 F.3d 693,
700 (8th Cir. 2009). Substantial evidence is “more than a scintilla, but less than a
preponderance.” Id. (quoting Clapp v. Citibank, N.A. Disability Plan (501), 262 F.3d
820, 828 (8th Cir. 2001)). Although a plan administrator may not ignore relevant evidence
without abusing his or her discretion, see id. at 701, only the evidence available to the plan

3

administrator at the time of benefits denial is relevant to the court’s review, see King v.
Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 414 F.3d 994, 999 (8th Cir. 2005). See Gerhardt, 736
F.3d at 780 (“A plan administrator abuses its discretion when it ignores relevant
evidence.” (quoting Wilcox, 552 F.3d at 701)).
B. Review of Report and Recommendation
The standard of review to be applied by the court to a report and recommendation
of a magistrate judge is established by statute:
A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the
court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (providing that, when a party
properly objects to a report and recommendation on a dispositive motion, a district court
must review de novo the magistrate judge’s recommendation). The Eighth Circuit has
repeatedly held that it is reversible error for a district court to fail to conduct a de novo
review of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation when such review is required.
See, e.g., United States v. Lothridge, 324 F.3d 599, 600 (8th Cir. 2003); Hosna v.
Groose, 80 F.3d 298, 306 (8th Cir. 1996); Hudson v. Gammon, 46 F.3d 785, 786 (8th
Cir. 1995); Belk v. Purkett, 15 F.3d 803, 815 (8th Cir. 1994). The statute governing
review provides only for de novo review of “those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”

28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). The court reviews the unobjected-to portions of the proposed findings or
recommendations for “plain error.” See United States v. Rodriguez, 484 F.3d 1006, 101011 (8th Cir. 2007) (noting that, where a party does not file objections to a magistrate’s
report and recommendation, the party waives the right to de novo review and the court will
review the decision for plain error).

4

V. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. The Plan
At all relevant times Timm was employed by Cyclone Contracting Corporation
(“Cyclone Contracting”) as a lead HVAC and plumbing installer.

Complaint ¶ 5;

Administrative Record (“AR”) (docket no. 12) at 13, 44. Effective September 1, 2015,
Unum Life issued a group disability insurance policy, Policy Number 632436 002
(“Policy”) to Cyclone Contracting, which funded the Short Term Disability Plan and the
Long Term Disability Plan (“LTD Plan”) sponsored by Cyclone Contracting. Answer ¶ 6;
AR at 64. Timm received coverage under the LTD Plan effective September 1, 2015. AR
at 64. On May 10, 2016, Timm stopped working as a lead HVAC and plumbing installer
due to a disability. Id. at 14.
The LTD Plan provided, in relevant part, that it “does not cover any disabilities
caused by, contributed to by, or resulting from [a] . . . preexisting condition.” Id. at 9798. The LTD Plan further stated that an employee has a preexisting condition if: (1) the
employee “received medical treatment, consultation, care or services including diagnostic
measures, or took prescribed drugs or medicines in the [six] months just prior to [the]
effective date of coverage” and (2) “the disability begins in the first [twenty-four] months
after [the] effective date of coverage unless [the employee] ha[s] been treatment free for
[twelve] consecutive months after [the] effective date of coverage.”1 Id. at 98.
B. Timm’s Medical History
On July 22, 2015, Dr. Kyle Alliman saw Timm at the Wolfe Eye Clinic for a
routine follow-up examination. See id. at 162. Timm reported that “[h]e ha[d] been

1

The parties do not dispute that the disability for which Timm is seeking benefits
began within the first twenty-four months after his effective date of coverage. Therefore,
the court shall only address whether Timm “received medical treatment, consultation, care
or services including diagnostic measures, or took prescribed drugs or medicines in the
[six] months just prior to [the] effective date of coverage.” AR at 98.
5

experiencing no symptoms.” Id. During the examination, Dr. Alliman noted that Timm’s
right eye had “1+ disc edema” and his left eye had “3+ disc edema.” Id. at 163. Dr.
Alliman also noted that Timm had “[p]apilledema from increased intracranial pressure”
in “both eyes,” though greater in the left eye than the right eye. Id. Dr. Alliman stated
that Timm’s left eye “ha[d] a significant increase in optic disc edema” and his right eye
“now [had] mild edema.” Id. at 164.
On July 27, 2015, Timm returned to the Wolfe Eye Clinic to address concerns
regarding the vision in his left eye. Id. at 165. At this time, Timm reported no symptoms
in his right eye. Id. An examination revealed swelling in both eyes, though greater in the
left eye than the right eye.

Id. at 166.

Dr. David Saggau noted that Timm had

“[p]apilledema from increased intracranial pressure in both eyes” greater in the left eye
than the right eye. Id. He determined that this “[a]ccount[ed] for [the] progressive visual
change that [Timm] [was] experiencing.” Id.
On July 29, 2015, Timm was seen by Dr. Matthew Thurtell at the University of
Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (“UIHC”). Id. at 191. Dr. Thurtell acknowledged that Dr.
Alliman had found “optic disc edema in both eyes, greater in the left eye.” Id. As of that
appointment, Timm “ha[d] not noticed any significant changes in the right eye.” Id. An
examination of the right eye revealed no edema. Id. at 194. Although Dr. Thurtell
“agree[d] that [Timm] ha[d] findings consistent with an acute optic neuropathy” in his left
eye, Dr. Thurtell did “not think that he ha[d] optic edema” in his right eye. Id. at 196.
As of July 30, 2015, doctors at UIHC determined that Timm had nonarteritic anterior
ischemic optic neuropathy (“NAION”) in his left eye. Id. at 286.
On August 5, 2015, Dr. Alliman sent a letter to the Neuro-Opthalmology
Department at the Mayo Clinic that stated in relevant part that Timm had “returned for a
[six] month follow up appointment in late July with a new onset of optic disc edema [left
eye] greater than [right eye].” Id. at 168. He also stated that Timm had returned on July

6

27, 2015, and his “vision continued to deteriorate in the left eye and [was] becoming
blurry in the right eye.” Id. “The diagnosis at that point was ischemic optic neuropathy
[left eye] greater than [right eye].” Id. Despite being placed on a high dose oral steroid,
Timm’s vision continued to deteriorate. Id. On August 6, 2015, Timm was seen again
at the Wolfe Eye Clinic complaining “of decreased vision in [his] left eye.” Id. at 169.
On February 29, 2016, Timm was seen by Dr. Jared Nielsen at the Wolfe Eye
Clinic after he began to experience decreased vision in his right eye. Id. at 172. An
examination revealed optic “disc swelling” in his right eye and Dr. Nielsen noted that the
“optic nerve head swelling” had increased “[w]hen compared to [a] previous scan.” Id.
at 173. Dr. Nielsen also found that “[p]apilledema from increased intracranial pressure”
was present in both eyes and was now “severe,” “stable” and greater in the right eye than
the left eye. Id. Dr. Nielsen also noted that Timm “had been treated with corticosteroids
in the past” and had “substantial optic nerve head swelling now in the [right eye].” Id. at
174.
As of March 2016, doctors at UIHC determined that new findings suggested that
Timm now had “bilateral sequential [NAION].” Id. at 215. By May 2016, Timm’s vision
had so deteriorated that he was legally blind. Id. at 47. In May 2016, Unum Life found
that Timm was disabled. Id. at 14.
C. Unum Life’s Denial
On May 21, 2016, Timm submitted a disability claim form to Unum Life asserting
that his disabling medical condition was “optic neuropathy.” Complaint ¶ 12; AR at 37.
Dr. John Chen also provided an attending physician statement, which stated that Timm’s
primary diagnosis was “[b]ilateral optic neuropathy.” AR at 46. On June 10, 2016,
Unum Life approved Timm’s short term disability claim and paid Timm short term
disability benefits through August 10, 2016. Complaint ¶ 13. On August 12, 2016, Unum
Life denied Timm’s long term disability claim because it determined that he had a

7

preexisting condition under the LTD Plan. Id. ¶ 14; AR 242-43.
D. Timm’s Appeal
On August 30, 2016, Timm appealed the denial of his long term disability claim.
Complaint ¶ 15. Timm also provided additional letters from his medical providers in
support of his claim. Dr. Thurtell submitted a letter that read in relevant part:
[Timm] initially presented with vision loss in his left eye in
late July 2015. He had clinical findings consistent with
[NAION] in the left eye only (i.e., there was no evidence of
[NAION] in the right eye at that point). However, he
represented with vision loss in his right eye in March 2016.
At that time, he had clinical findings consistent with [NAION]
in the right eye. He has, unfortunately, had little recovery of
vision in either eye.
AR at 338. Dr. Alliman also submitted a letter, which stated:
Timm was originally seen at the Wolfe Eye Clinic on July 22,
2015[,] with optic disc swelling in his left eye. He
subsequently noted significant decrease in vision on July 27,
2015. On subsequent evaluation for the left eye disc edema
was unrevealing. He then presented again on February 29,
2016[,] with optic nerve swelling in the right eye with decrease
in vision. Subsequent evaluation again revealed no underlying
cause and a diagnosis of [NAION] was made. Since that time
vision in both eyes has diminished significantly.
Id. at 339.
On September 19, 2016, Unum Life completed the appeal review of Timm’s long
term disability claim. Id. at 365-66. Unum Life determined that their decision to deny the
claim was correct because “[t]he condition for which [Timm was] reporting disability [was]
the result of a preexisting condition, which was excluded from coverage.” Id. at 366;
Complaint ¶ 16. Specifically Unum Life concluded that:
The condition of bilateral optic neuropathy or more
specifically, [NAION]; which is caused by an acute
impairment to the circle of the arteries supplying the optic
8

nerve, was caused by, contributed to by, or resulted from
papilledema and optic disc edema for which [Timm] received
treatment . . . during the period of March 01, 2015 through
August 31, 2015.
AR at 367. Timm subsequently brought the present action, contending that Unum Life
improperly denied his long term disability claim. Complaint ¶¶ 20-23.
VI. ANALYSIS
Timm raises two objections to the Report and Recommendation. First, Timm
contends that Judge Williams incorrectly concluded that the loss of sight in Timm’s “left
eye was part of the condition that rendered [Timm] incapable of working.” Objections at
3 (quoting Report and Recommendation at 6-7). Timm asserts that the loss of vision in his
right eye is an independent condition and is the disabling condition. See Objections at 2-3.
Thus, Timm contends that Judge Williams’s determination that the loss of sight in Timm’s
left eye was a preexisting condition was erroneous. Timm further relies on Judge
Williams’s conclusion that optic neuropathy in Timm’s “right eye had neither been
diagnosed nor treated as of the effective date of the policy,” Report and Recommendation
at 2, to support his argument that the condition in his right eye was not preexisting. See
Objections at 2-3. Second, Timm asserts that Judge Williams failed to “consider Timm’s
condition as of the effective date of the [p]olicy.” Id. at 4. Essentially, Timm contends
that, because he had already lost vision in his left eye at the time he obtained coverage,
consideration of the condition of his left eye is improper. Id.
Both objections grow out of Judge Williams’s conclusion that Timm had neither
been diagnosed with nor received treatment for optic neuropathy in his right eye. The
court finds that this conclusion fails to address the dispositive issue in this case. The LTD
Plan provides that a condition qualifies as a preexisting condition if the employee “received
medical treatment, consultation, care or services including diagnostic measures, or took
prescribed drugs or medicines in the [six] months just prior to [the employee’s] effective

9

date of coverage.” AR at 98. The plain language of the LTD Plan’s preexisting condition
provision indicates that a diagnosis is not required to find a preexisting condition. See
Kracht v. Aalfs Assocs. H.C.P., 905 F. Supp. 604, 614 (N.D. Iowa 1995) (“If the plain
language of the policy does not require a diagnosis in order for the subsequent treatment
of the illness to be excluded under the pre-existing condition, the absence of a diagnosis
is irrelevant.”); see also Cury v. Colonial Life Ins. Co. of Am., 737 F. Supp. 847, 854
(E.D. Pa. 1990) (concluding that a policy that defined a preexisting condition as a sickness
or injury for which the employee “receive[d] medical treatment or consultation,” “ha[d]
medical care or services,” “ha[d] diagnostic tests” or “t[ook] prescribed drugs or
medicines” did not require “that a diagnosis, definite or otherwise, of the pre-existing
condition must be made during the pre-existing condition period”).
Further, the preexisting condition provision at issue does not limit coverage only
for disabling conditions that manifested as preexisting conditions. Rather, the LTD Plan
“does not cover any disabilities caused by, contributed to by, or resulting from” a
preexisting condition. AR at 97-98. Given the broad language governing preexisting
conditions, Timm’s focus on whether he had been treated for or diagnosed with optic
neuropathy in his right eye is misplaced. Rather, the pertinent inquiry is whether Timm
“received medical treatment, consultation, care or services including diagnostic measures,
or took prescribed drugs or medicines” for a preexisting condition that ultimately caused,
contributed to or from which his disabling condition resulted. Id.
After conducting a de novo review, the court finds that Timm’s medical records
contain numerous references to “papilledema” and “optic edema” in both eyes, although
more significant in his left eye. See id. at 162-66, 168, 178. Papilledema is “[e]dema
(swelling) of the optic disc.” 2 Medical Information System for Lawyers § 9:125 (2d ed.
2018); see also Skipp v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., No. CCB-06-2199, 2008 WL 346107, at
*1 n.5 (D. Md. Feb. 6, 2008) (“Papilledema refers to a swelling of the optic disc caused

10

by increased intracranial pressure.”). “In its severest forms, [papilledema] can cause
vision problems and eventual loss of vision.” Skipp, 2008 WL 346107 at *1 n.5. Timm’s
medical records also indicate that he was prescribed an oral steroid that did alleviate some
of the swelling in his right eye. See AR at 177 (noting that Timm had “recurrent optic disc
edema” in his right eye and that the “disc edema . . . reportedly previously resolved on
a course of high dose oral steroids”).
Ultimately, Timm was diagnosed with NAION which is “characterized by the acute
onset of painless blindness with edema of the optic disc.” 2 Medical Information System
for Lawyers § 9:125 (2d ed. 2018). The record supports the conclusion that Timm had
not lost vision in his right eye during the look back period. See AR at 358 (noting that
“there was no evidence of NAION in [Timm’s] right eye at that point” and “he did not
notice decreased vision in his right eye until February or March 2016”). However, Nurse
Karen York, a consultant for Unum Life, concluded that Timm’s NAION resulted from
the papilledema and optic disc edema with which Timm presented during the look back
period. See AR at 358. Thus, this case is distinguishable from those in which a plaintiff
was treated for a condition that was entirely unrelated to the disabling condition. See
Pitcher v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 93 F.3d 407, 414 (7th Cir. 1996) (concluding that,
where the underlying condition for which the plaintiff received treatment was discovered
in the course of treating an unrelated manifest condition, “there was no causal or
associative relationship” (quotation omitted)). Indeed, Unum Life’s decision on appeal
reasoned as follows:
[Timm’s] available records indicate [he] received treatment,
consultation, care or services including diagnostic measures,
or took prescribed drugs or medications during the period of
March 01, 2015 through August 31, 2015[,] for papilledema
from increased intracranial pressure in both eyes, optic disc
edema in both eyes—left eye greater than right, with
significant increase in optic disc edema in the left eye, with
mild edema in the right eye.
11

The office visit notes . . . note papilledema or swelling of
[Timm’s] optic disc due to increased intracranial pressure in
both of [his] eyes, albeit left was greater than right. Edema of
the optic disc is typically caused by optic neuritis or ischemic
optic neuropathy.
The condition of bilateral optic neuropathy or more
specifically, [NAION]; which is caused by an acute
impairment to the circle of the arteries supplying the optic
nerve, was caused by, contributed to by, or resulted from
papilledema and optic disc edema for which [Timm] received
treatment . . . during the period of March 01, 2015 through
August 31, 2015.
AR at 367.
As outlined above, the court finds that there is substantial evidence in the record to
support Unum Life’s conclusion that Timm had received treatment, consultation, care or
services including diagnostic measures or had taken prescribed medication for papilledema
and optic disc edema in his right eye. See Prezioso, 748 F.3d at 805 (noting that a court
must affirm the decision “if a reasonable person could have reached a similar decision,
given the evidence before him, not that a reasonable person would have reached that
decision” (quoting Ferrari, 278 F.3d at 807)). The court also finds that there is substantial
evidence in the record to support Unum Life’s conclusion that the papilledema and optic
disc edema in Timm’s right eye ultimately caused or contributed to his disabling condition
of NAION. See Rice v. ADP TotalSource, Inc., 936 F. Supp. 2d 951, 966-67 (N.D. Ill.
2013) (“Thus the question is . . . whether there is ‘rational support in the record’ for [the
defendant’s] determination that [the plaintiff’s malignant brain tumor] was a progression
of his original brain tumor and therefore was ‘caused, or contributed to, by’ his glioma.”);
see also Kirk v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 942 F.2d 504, 505 (8th Cir. 1991)
(affirming denial of disability coverage where the district court “found that although the
endocarditis was not diagnosed until after the effective date of the policy, the infection
began prior to the effective date”). The court notes that there was conflicting evidence in
12

the record, as some medical providers did not conclude that Timm had optic disc edema
in his right eye. Compare AR 163-64, with AR 196. However, any conflicting evidence
in the record is for Unum Life to resolve. The court is not permitted to “substitute [its]
own weighing of the evidence for that of the administrator.” Gerhardt, 736 F.3d at 780
(quoting Sahulka, 206 F.3d at 769-70). Thus, the court finds that Unum Life’s decision
was supported by substantial evidence.
After engaging in a de novo review, the court finds that it is unnecessary to
determine whether the condition in Timm’s right eye was related to or caused by the
NAION in his left eye. Nor does the court need to find that the condition in Timm’s left
eye constituted a preexisting condition. Therefore, the court declines to adopt the portions
of the Report and Recommendation wherein Judge Williams found that Timm’s disabling
condition was the loss of sight in both of his eyes, that the conditions in both eyes were
related and that Timm’s loss of sight in his left eye constituted a preexisting condition.
Accordingly, Timm’s objections are overruled as moot.
VII. CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED:
(1)

The Objections (docket no. 18) are OVERRULED;

(2)

The Report and Recommendation (docket no. 17) is ADOPTED IN PART
and the final decision of Unum Life is AFFIRMED; and

(3)

The Complaint (docket no. 2) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 6th day of August, 2018.

13