Davis v. Capital One Services LLC et al
ORDER & REASONS that Defendants Aetna Life Insurance Company and Capital One Financial Corporation's 22 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Eldon E. Fallon on 1/18/17. (dno)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
ORDER & REASONS
SECTION "L" (5)
Pending before the Court is Defendants Aetna Life Insurance Company and Capital One
Financial Corporation’s (“Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment. R. 22. Plaintiff,
Deborah Davis, has submitted no opposition to the Defendants’ Motion. For the following
reasons, the unopposed motion is GRANTED.
This ERISA case stems from Defendants Aetna and Capital One’s refusal to provide
short and long-term benefits under the terms of Plaintiff’s employee welfare plan. R. 1 at 1.
Capital One was Plaintiff’s employer, and Capital One provided a Benefits Program through
Aetna Life Insurance Company. R. 1 at 2. On October 11, 2012, Plaintiff’s husband, Jeffrey
Davis, died after being pinned under a vehicle. R. 1 at 3. Plaintiff witnessed her husband’s death.
R. 1 at 3. Plaintiff alleges that witnessing her husband’s death caused her to experience
emotional distress, extreme grief, and insomnia. R. 1 at 3. Plaintiff began visiting Dr. Lora
Langefels regarding these issues. R. 1 at 3.
On November 2, 2012, Plaintiff requested leave under the Family Medical Leave Act,
Case No. 7121750, and Disability, Case No. 7131752. R. 1 at 3. On December 11, 2012, Plaintiff
received correspondence indicating that her FMLA claim, Case No. 713750, was denied.
Plaintiff alleges she has never received any decision regarding her disability claim. R. 1 at 3.
Plaintiff was ultimately terminated by Capital One on May 5, 2013, and has never received any
disability compensation. R. 1 at 6. Plaintiff now seeks payment of short term and long term
benefits under the terms of the Aetna plan. R. 1 at 7. Plaintiff also asserts that Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by arbitrarily and capriciously failing to pay her benefits. R. 1 at
7. Finally, Plaintiff seeks a Judgment declaring she is entitled to past and future long-term
disability benefits under the terms of the Aetna plan. R. 1 at 7–8. Aetna and Capital One both
timely filed Answers asserting that Plaintiff was not entitled to benefits under the Aetna plan, as
well as the standard ERISA defenses. R. 8, 9.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
An unopposed motion seeking summary judgment shall be entered “if appropriate.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(e). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
To oppose a motion for summary judgment, the non-movant cannot rest on mere
allegations or denials but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of
material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 321–22 (1986). Where the movant
demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, “the nonmovant must go beyond the
pleadings and designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Willis v.
Roche Biomedical Labs., Inc., 61 F.3d 313, 315 (5th Cir. 1995). The Court does not, “in the
absence of any proof, assume that the nonmoving party could or would prove the necessary
facts.” Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994). If the record taken as a
whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, no genuine issue
exists for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
In this case, summary judgment is proper. Plaintiff bears the burden of proving she was
entitled to benefits under the terms of the Plan, and that the denial of benefits was arbitrary and
capricious. Dramse v. Delta Family-Care Disability & Survivorship Plan, 269 F. App'x 470, 481
(5th Cir. 2008). Under the terms of the Plan, Plaintiff was only entitled to disability benefits after
her disability was certified by the plan administrator. See R. 22-1 at 10; AR at 321. Despite
multiple requests from the plan administrator, Plaintiff failed to submit any medical
documentation indicating she suffered from a disability that would prevent her from completing
any of her job responsibilities. See R. 22-1 at 11-12. The record demonstrates that Plaintiff,
contrary to her allegations, did not ever file a claim for long term benefits. See R. 22, Ex. 1,
Comar affidavit. Further, Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. Under the terms
of the plan, she was required to appeal a decision denying benefits within 180 days. AR at 337,
386, 483-84. Plaintiff did not respond to the benefits denial until filing this lawsuit—nearly three
years after the 180 day deadline expired. R. Doc. 22-1 at 13. Finally, Plaintiff has come forth
with no evidence either to support her claim or rebut Defendants’ arguments. As Plaintiff has not
demonstrated a genuine issue of any material fact, the Court finds Defendant is entitled to
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Aetna Life Insurance Company and Capital One
Financial Corporation’s Motion for Summary Judgment, R. 22, is GRANTED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 18th day of January, 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
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?