Davis v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada

Filing 57

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered. ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Action on motion: ; adopting Report and Recommendations re 52 Report and Recommendations.; granting 27 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 29 Motion for Summary Judgment.(Zierk, Marsha) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/1/2017: # 1 Report and Recommendations) (Caruso, Stephanie).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-12773-RGS
VICTORIA DAVIS
v.
SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA
MEMORNADUM AND ORDER
ON THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
September 1, 2017
STEARNS, D.J.
I am persuaded by Magistrate Judge Kelley’s exhaustive analysis of the
record in this ERISA appeal that defendant Sun Life Assurance Company of
Canada properly denied plaintiff Victoria Davis’s application for long-term
disability benefits.

The Report reviews in depth each of the manifold

arguments that were raised by Davis in the proceedings below. I agree with
the Magistrate Judge’s ultimate conclusion that, while Davis suffers from a
number of medical problems, on balance she failed to meet her burden of
proving that she was disabled within the meaning of the policy; that Sun Life
was justified in finding that, despite her physical limitations, she remained
able to perform sedentary work; and that despite some minor procedural

missteps, Sun Life “fully and fairly” processed Davis’s benefits application
and appeal.1 While I also believe that Sun Life made out a credible case that
Davis did not satisfy the “Actively at Work” requirement for coverage under
the policy, I will defer to the Magistrate Judge’s reasoned determination that
Sun Life was wrong to deny benefits on this ground.
ORDER
For

the

reasons

explained

Recommendation is ADOPTED.

by

the

Magistrate

Judge,

the

The motion of defendant Sun Life for

summary judgment is ALLOWED.

Davis’s cross-motion for summary

judgment is DENIED. The Clerk will enter final judgment accordingly and
close the case.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Richard G. Stearns
________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Davis has filed a lengthy Objection to the Report and
Recommendation, but she points to no material errors of factual omission or
misinterpretation, or failures of legal reasoning on the part of the Magistrate
Judge; she simply disagrees with the weight the Magistrate Judge assigned
to conflicting items of record evidence and the inferences that she drew as a
result.
1