Prokhorova v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America
Filing
29
Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER on Plaintiff's 16 MOTION to Supplement the Record. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the Record is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part on the terms set forth in this Memorandum and Order. The parties are directed to confer and file by no later than May 4, 2018 a joint proposal setting a schedule for the filing of the supplemented administrative record and for the briefing of dispositive motion(s). It is so ordered. (See attached memo & order for complete details.) (Calderon, Melissa)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
NATALYA PROHKOROVA,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 17-30064-MGM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD
(Dkt. No. 16)
ROBERTSON, M.J.
This is an action brought by plaintiff Natalya Prohkorova (“Plaintiff”) pursuant to the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., to recover
long-term disability (“LTD”) benefits allegedly wrongfully discontinued by the defendant, Unum
Life Insurance Company of America (“Unum”). Plaintiff has moved to supplement the
administrative record (“A.R.”) by adding (1) six portions of Unum’s Benefits Center Claims
Manual (“Claims Manual”); (2) documents concerning Unum’s quality compliance criteria
(which Unum has not produced); and (3) vocational resource material. Unum opposes the
motion. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement the Record is GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part.
I.
The Claim
At the onset of Plaintiff’s disability, she was employed as a pediatrician.1 She filed an
LTD claim, an individual disability claim, and a life waiver of premium claim with a January 3,
Pending a decision on Plaintiff’s motion to supplement, the parties have not filed the
administrative record with the court. This summary of the facts and Unum’s basis for denying
1
1
2007 date for the onset of disability. She began receiving disability benefits based on her
inability to perform the material and substantial functions of her job as a pediatrician based on a
diagnosis of herniated nucleus polposus of the thoracic spine and thoracic radiculopathy (Dkt.
No. 18-1 at 3). In July 2013, Unum obtained updated medical information from Plaintiff.
According to the appeal decision, a December 4, 2015 thoracic MRI showed no finding of
stenosis or nerve root compression that would be consistent with thoracic radiculopathy or local
thoracic pain. Compared with a 2008 MRI, the size of the thoracic disk herniation had decreased
to the point that, in a December 14, 2014 study, there was no longer any disc herniation seen (id.
at 3-4). Unum referred Plaintiff for a psychiatric IME (independent medical examination) to
assess the possibility that Plaintiff’s complaints of chronic pain were psychiatric in nature. The
IME did not result in the diagnosis of any psychiatric condition or a recommendation for any
psychiatric or behavioral health care treatment (id. at 4). Unum concluded that Plaintiff was no
longer disabled because test results did not support a disabling back condition, there was no
psychiatric diagnosis, and her complaints of chronic disabling pain were inconsistent with
objective test results (id.).
II.
Legal Framework
The parties agree on the standard of review in this denial of benefits case. They agree
that the LTD plan under which Plaintiff claims to be entitled to benefits “reserves discretion to
the administrator [,Unum, so that] judicial review of the denial [of benefits] is limited to
determining whether the administrator acted arbitrarily and capriciously.” Liston v. Unum Corp.
Officer Severance Plan, 330 F.3d 19, 22 (1st Cir. 2003) (citing Leahy v. Raytheon Co., 315 F.3d
Plaintiff’s claim is drawn from Unum’s appeal decision attached as Exhibit A to Unum’s
opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to supplement (Dkt. No. 18-1).
2
11, 15 (1st Cir. 2002); Doe v. Travelers Ins. Co., 167 F.3d 53, 56-57 (1st Cir. 1999)). They
further agree that Unum “both determines whether an employee is eligible for benefits under [the
LTD plan] and pays those benefits out of its own pocket, [and that] ‘this dual role creates a
conflict of interest.’” Wilson v. Pharmerica Corp. Long Term Disability Plan, 102 F. Supp. 3d
373, 374 (D. Mass. 2015) (quoting Metro Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 108 (2008)).2 In
Glenn, the United States Supreme Court held that when, as here, such a structural conflict exists,
judges reviewing denial of benefits decisions “should weigh a conflict as they would any other
pertinent factor; that is, when the relevant considerations are in equipoise, any one factor,
including a structural conflict, may act as a tiebreaker.” Denmark v. Liberty Assurance Co. of
Boston, 566 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2015) (citing Glenn, 554 U.S. at 116-17).
“ERISA benefit-denial cases typically are adjudicated on the record compiled before the
plan administrator.” Id. at 10. In Denmark, the First Circuit stated that “Glenn fairly can be read
as contemplating some discovery on the issue of whether a structural conflict has morphed into
an actual conflict. See, e.g. Glenn, [554 U.S. at 117]. . . . But any such discovery must be
allowed sparingly and, if allowed at all, must be narrowly tailored so as to leave the substantive
record essentially undisturbed.” Id. After a review of the documents at issue and Plaintiff’s
arguments for supplementation, the court concludes that the documents with which Plaintiff
seeks to supplement the A.R. are not related to Unum’s structural conflict. Plaintiff has not
identified any “gap in the administrative record” related to Unum’s “procedures used to prevent
At the onset of Plaintiff’s disability, she was also covered by an individual disability policy
issued by Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, a subsidiary of Unum Group (Dkt. No. 18 at 1).
Unum Group employees provided services on behalf of Unum and Paul Revere in the
administration of Plaintiff’s claims under the individual disability policy and the group LTD
policy. The parties have agreed on portions of the individual disability claims file that should be
added to the A.R. for purposes of reviewing Plaintiff’s claims under the group LTD policy (Dkt.
No. 17 at 3).
2
3
or mitigate the effect of structural conflicts,” id., that she seeks to address by supplementing the
A.R.
Instead, for the most part, Plaintiff seeks to supplement the A.R. with internal documents
from Unum, such as portions of its Claims Manual, which Plaintiff claims are analogous to an
administrative agency’s guidelines and regulations as a basis for challenging aspects of Unum’s
process in evaluating her claim (Dkt. No. 17 at 4). “The administrator’s obligation to avoid
arbitrary and capricious behavior extends to procedure as well as substance.” Liston, 330 F.3d at
25 n.5 (citing Perlman v. Swiss Bank Corp. Comprehensive Disability Prot. Plan, 195 F.3d 975,
981 (7th Cir. 1999)). In Glista v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 378 F.3d 113, 122 (1st Cir. 2004),
the First Circuit held that the plan administrator’s internal documents “interpreting the language
of the [p]lan and providing the standard for evaluation of the facts presented” should be
considered as part of the administrative record in the benefits denial case before the court where
those documents were relevant to the interpretation of the plan terms on the basis of which the
plan administrator had denied benefits. See id. at 124, 126. Subsequently, the First Circuit
addressed a claimant’s contention that the district court should have provided the claimant with
discovery to determine whether the claims staff and medical reviewers followed procedure and
were properly educated and trained. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the
requested discovery on the ground that “[t]here was no serious claim of bias or procedural
misconduct toward [the claimant] . . . and that ‘at least some very good reason [wa]s needed to
overcome the strong presumption that the record on review is limited to the record before the
administrator.’” Orndorf v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 404 F.3d 510, 520 (1st Cir. 2005) (quoting
Liston, 330 F.3d at 23). “The weight and admissibility of internal documents, whether those
documents are offered in support of the interpretation of the plan administrator or that of the
4
claimant, will vary with the facts of each case.” Glista, 378 F.3d at 123. The question after
Glista and Orndorf is whether, with respect to the specific materials Plaintiff has identified, she
has shown some very good reason in the context of this case to overcome the strong presumption
against supplementing the record on which the plan administrator’s decision was based.
III.
Discussion
1.
Unum Claims Manual3
When there is an adverse benefits determination with respect to a claim for disability
benefits, a plan administrator is required to provide the claimant with relevant documents,
defined as documents, records, or other information that were “relied upon in making the benefit
determination;” were “submitted, considered, or generated in the course of making the benefit
determination without regard to whether such document, record, or other information was relied
upon in making the benefit determination;” “[d]emonstrate[] compliance with the administrative
processes and safeguards required . . . in making the benefit determination;” or are “statement[s]
of policy or guidance with respect to the plan concerning the denied . . . benefit for the
claimant’s diagnosis, without regard to whether such advice or statement was relied upon in
making the benefit determination.” 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1(m)(8)(i)-(iv) (2017).
Although it is not clear that the Unum Claims Manual constitutes a “relevant document”
within this definition in all cases, at the hearing, Unum’s attorney represented that Unum
routinely provides its Claims Manual to claimants’ counsel. Plaintiff argues that selected
At the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion, the parties jointly submitted a paginated copy of Unum’s
Claims Manual as a substitute for the unpaginated version of the Claims Manual that was
attached as Exhibit 2 to Plaintiff’s motion. The court has entered the substituted Claims Manual
on the docket as Docket Number 28. Citations to pages of the Claims Manual in this
Memorandum and Order are to pages of Docket Entry 28. The page numbers of Docket Number
28 correspond to the Bates numbers appearing at the bottom of the pages of the substituted
exhibit.
3
5
portions of the Claims Manual, identified below, should be added to the A.R. (Dkt. No. 26 at 1).
The court addresses each proposed addition in turn.
A. Functional Capacity and Occupational Demands; Occupational Evaluation;
Frequently Asked Questions
Plaintiff seeks to supplement the A.R. with portions of the Claims Manual that address
Unum’s procedures for assessing a claimant’s ability to perform the duties of her occupation (id.
at 1-5). Plaintiff contends that these portions of the Claims Manual should be added to the A.R.
as a basis for an argument by Plaintiff that the process by which Unum concluded that Plaintiff
was capable of performing the duties of her occupation, when tested against these portions of the
Claims Manual, was arbitrary and capricious because of the limited sources of information relied
on by a vocational rehabilitation consultant who provided an opinion about Plaintiff’s ability to
perform the duties of her occupation (id. at 2). Unum objects to adding these portions of the
Claims Manual to the A.R. on the grounds that Plaintiff has not shown that Unum relied on the
Claims Manual in reviewing her claim, that any action taken by Unum was inconsistent with the
Claims Manual, or that Plaintiff has identified any part of the Claims Manual that would assist in
interpreting a provision or clause in the Plan documents on which Unum relied in denying her
claim (Dkt. No. 18 at 3-4). Fundamentally, Unum argues, this case is not about the process by
which it reached its decision, but about whether the contents of the A.R. support the plan
administrator’s decision under the arbitrary and capricious standard of review (id.).
In the court’s view, there is merit to Unum’s position as to the documents related to
Plaintiff’s functional capacity. This is not a case, such as Glista, in which the claimant has
identified a plan definition of functional capacity that requires clarification by reference to
Unum’s internal documents. Plaintiff’s claim of disability is based on pain and functional
limitations attributable to problems with her back. Plaintiff “bore the ‘burden to provide
6
evidence that [she] was unable to perform the duties of [her] occupation,’ and ‘[a]n integral part
of that evidence would be a statement of what [her] job required.’” Tsoulas v. Liberty Life Assur.
Co. of Boston, 454 F.3d 69, 78 (1st Cir. 2006) (quoting Wright v. R.R. Donnelly & Sons Co. Grp.
Benefits Plan, 302 F.3d 67, 77 (1st Cir. 2005)) (alterations in original). Vocational reviews
conducted in connection with Plaintiff’s disability claim in 2007 included the opinion that a
pediatrician is required to stand and walk frequently with lifting of up to 50 pounds (Dkt. No. 169 at 2). The vocational rehabilitation consultant who reviewed the file in 2016 relied on
Plaintiff’s job description information and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”) and
the Enhanced DOT (“EDOT”) to conclude that the physical demands of Plaintiff’s own
occupation of pediatrician required frequent sitting, occasional standing and walking, and the
occasional lifting/exertion of force of up to 20 pounds (Dkt. Nos. 16-11; 16-12). The Claims
Manual states that usage of the DOT physical demands and frequency descriptors provide a
“starting point” for defining the physical requirements of a specific occupation because the DOT
descriptors are commonly understood primarily as references that address the requirements for
lifting and carrying, and sitting, standing, and walking (Dkt. No. 28 at 11-12). Plaintiff’s
disagreement with the 2016 vocational rehabilitation consultant opinion appears to concern the
lifting and carrying and sitting and standing demands of the occupation of pediatrician. Unum’s
Claims Manual identifies the DOT and the EDOT as appropriate sources for determining these
kinds of physical demands of an occupation (id. at 11). Because it was appropriate for Unum’s
vocational rehabilitation consultant to rely on these sources in conjunction with Plaintiff’s
description of the demands of her job as a basis for an opinion, Plaintiff has failed to identify “a
serious claim of . . . procedural misconduct” in connection with Unum’s vocational assessment
that would “’overcome the strong presumption that the record on review is limited to the record
7
before the administrator.’” Orndorf, 404 F.3d at 520 (quoting Liston, 330 F.3d at 23). For these
reasons, the court denies Plaintiff’s request to supplement the A.R. with pages 11-12, 32-33, and
54-55 of the Claims Manual (Dkt. No. 28 at 11-12, 32-33, 54-55).
B. Medical Information and Resources
Plaintiff raises as an issue Unum’s reliance on the opinion of a non-examining physician
employed by Unum and contends that the doctor who provided the opinion failed to comply with
the provision in the Claims Manual that requires internal medical resources to apply “critical
scientific analysis” in formulating their opinions (Dkt. No. 28 at 29). Judicial review in this case
should not be focused on the interpretation of a nonspecific provision in the Claims Manual.
Here, Plaintiff is simply making an argument about the sufficiency of the evidence rather than
identifying possible procedural misconduct by Unum. The addition of this portion of the Claims
Manual to the A.R. would not assist with the interpretation of the plan documents, nor would it
support an argument of unfair process demonstrating bias against Plaintiff. As to this portion of
the Claims Manual, Plaintiff has again failed to overcome the presumption that the A.R. should
remain limited to the documents that were before the administrator. See Orndorf, 404 F.3d at
520 (quoting Liston, 330 F.3d at 23). Accordingly, the court denies so much of Plaintiff’s
motion as seeks to add pages 27-31 of the Claims Manual (Dkt. No. 28 at 27-31) to the A.R.
C. Independent Assessments
Plaintiff seeks to supplement the A.R. with the portion of the Claims Manual that
provides that “Unum has an obligation to consider all medical information, which includes
giving deference to the opinion of the claimant’s [attending physician(s)] when making a
medical determination” (Dkt. Nos. 26 at 7; 28 at 14), arguing that Unum made only passing
8
reference to her attending physician’s opinion that she was disabled from work (Dkt. No. 26 at
7).
The Supreme Court has held that “[n]othing in [ERISA] . . . suggests that plan
administrators must accord special deference to the opinions of treating
physicians.” Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, 538 U.S. 822, 831 . . .
(2003). Further, it is not “for a court to determine precisely how much weight [an
insurer] should have accorded [a particular piece of evidence] in its overall
decision.” Gannon v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 360 F.3d 211, 214 (1st Cir. 2004)).
Tsoulas, 454 F.3d at 77 (alterations in original). Plaintiff’s position that this portion of the
Claims Manual should be admitted to show that Unum’s decision was arbitrary and capricious
“is contrary to binding precedent.” Warming v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 663 F. Supp. 2d
10, 23 (D. Me. 2009) (citing Tsoulas, 454 F.3d at 77) (denying the plaintiff’s motion to
supplement the administrative record with internal documents from the claims administrator that
the plaintiff asserted would support a claim that she had been denied a full and fair review of her
benefits application). For this reason, the court denies so much of Plaintiff’s motion as seeks to
supplement the record with page 14 of the Claims Manual (Dkt. No. 28 at 14).
D. Evaluation of Subjective Symptoms
In the court’s view, Plaintiff’s final contention as to the Claims Manual stands on a
different footing. Plaintiff alleges continuing disability based on subjective claims of pain and
resulting functional limitations. Unum denied Plaintiff’s appeal from the discontinuation of
benefits in significant part because objective medical findings in the record did not appear
consistent with her complaints of chronic pain (Dkt. No. 18-1 at 3-4). Unum’s Claims Manual
includes a section entitled “Evaluation of Subjective Symptoms” which outlines the process a
disability benefits specialist should follow in making a disability determination when the primary
symptoms supporting the claim are subjective (Dkt. No. 28 at 43-47). According to Plaintiff,
this section of the Claims Manual “is a road map of how [Plaintiff] sustained her burden of proof
9
as to continuing disability” (Dkt. No. 26 at 8). In Glista, the First Circuit held that where the
claimant did not seek to add new factual material to the record, “the plan administrator’s own
documents . . . providing the standard for evaluation of the facts presented” should be included in
the administrative record. 378 F.3d at 122; see also Tebo v. Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs., Inc.,
848 F. Supp. 2d 39, 48-49 (D. Mass. 2012) (including in the administrative record training
materials that reflected the plan administrator’s interpretation of its obligations under the Plan);
Cannon v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 219 F.R.D. 211, 214 (D. Me. 2004) (Unum’s internal
policies that instructed claims handlers how to handle the mental illness limitation in its policies
would be relevant to the question of whether Unum acted arbitrarily and capriciously in its
handling of the plaintiff’s claim). Supplementing the A.R. with Unum’s own documents
directing claims handlers how to evaluate a disability claim that depends to a large extent on
subjective claims of pain is consistent with the First Circuit’s ruling in Glista. Accordingly,
Plaintiff is entitled to supplement the A.R. with pages 43-47 of Unum’s Claims Manual (Dkt.
No. 28 at 43-37).
2. Quality Compliance Criteria
Plaintiff contends that Unum should be required to produce its Quality Compliance
Criteria (“QCC”) documents and that the QCC documents should be added to the A.R. because
Unum’s denial of Plaintiff’s individual disability claim was referred for QCC review and, as a
general matter, Plaintiff’s LTD and her ID claims were evaluated in tandem. In support of her
argument, Plaintiff points to Unum claims notes showing that an LTD QCC employee
participated in a conference call among employees from the LTD and the ID side about next
steps (Dkt. Nos. 16-5; 16-6) and showing that the ID denial decision was referred for QCC
review (Dkt. Nos. 16-7; 16-8). Unum opposes an order for production of its QCC documents
10
and the addition of QCC documents to the A.R. because Plaintiff has not shown that Plaintiff’s
LTD claim, the subject of this suit, was, or was required to be, subject to QCC review.
Under the terms of the governing regulations, a document, record or other information is
relevant and required to be made available to a claimant when the document, record, or
information was relied on in making the benefit determination, was submitted, considered, or
generated in the course of making the benefit determination, or demonstrates compliance with
the administrative processes and safeguards that are designed to ensure that benefit
determinations are made in compliance with plan documents and consistently with respect to
similarly situated claimants. See 29 C.F.R. § 2560-503-1(m)(8)(i)-(iii). Plaintiff has furnished
clear evidence that Unum referred her claim under her individual disability policy for QCC
review. She has submitted no such evidence as to her LTD claim. Thus, it does not appear that
QCC documents or information were relied upon or considered in connection with the LTD
benefits determination. Reliance on 29 C.F.R § 2560-503-1(m)(8)(iii) would be equally
misplaced because this provision in the regulations only requires “the disclosure of ‘compliance
verification materials specifically generated in connection with the particular adverse benefit
determination[.]’” Lampron v. Grp. Life Ins. and Disability Plan of United Techs. Corp., No.
2:13-cv-189-GZS, 2013 WL 5936683, at *16 (D. Me. Nov. 3, 2013) (quoting Palmiotti v. Metro.
Life Ins. Co., No. 04CIV0718LTSJCP, 2006 WL 510387, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2006)
(emphasis in original)). Plaintiff has not shown the existence of any compliance verification
materials specifically generated in connection with the discontinuation of her LTD benefits.
Finally, to the extent Plaintiff intends to challenge the discontinuance of her benefits on the basis
that her claim did not receive a full and fair review, she has not shown that QCC compliance was
required to ensure such a review or that the failure to conduct such a review constituted a
11
procedural irregularity. In summary, Plaintiff has not met her burden of showing a very good
reason for supplementing the A.R. with QCC standards that Unum may apply generally in LTD
cases or with additional QCC documents, if any exist, related to the denial of Plaintiff’s claim
under her individual disability policy. See Liston, 330 F.3d at 23; Kamerer v. Unum Life Ins. Co.
of Am., 251 F. Supp. 3d 349, 353 (D. Mass. 2017) (to reach outside of the administrative record
related to a specific decision, a claimant must have a meaningful challenge to the procedure used
by the claims administrator) (citing Orndorf, 404 F.3d at 520); Warming, 663 F. Supp. 2d at 19.
For these reasons, the court denies Plaintiff’s request to compel production of QCC documents,
records or information, and denies the request to supplement the A.R. with such documents,
records or information.
3. Vocational Resource Materials
In this case, the reviewing court is charged with determining whether Unum’s decision to
discontinue Plaintiff’s LTD benefits was arbitrary and capricious based on a review of the entire
record that was considered by Unum as the claims administrator. See Liston, 330 F.3d at 24;
Cannon, 219 F.R.D. at 215. “A document, record, or other information shall be considered
‘relevant’ to a claimant’s claim if such document, record or other information . . . [w]as relied
upon in making the benefit determination.” 29 C.F.R. § 2650.503-1(m)(8)(i). Thus, all
documents, records and information that were relied upon by Unum’s vocational rehabilitation
consultants in reaching the opinion that Plaintiff was “capable of performing the duties of her
occupation” (Dkt. No. 18-1 at 5) are relevant to Unum’s decision. Further, vocational resource
material that was submitted, considered, or generated in the course of making the benefit
determination, regardless of whether the material was relied upon as a basis for a claims
decision, is also “relevant” within the meaning of the regulations.
12
The court agrees with Plaintiff that all vocational resource material that was relied upon
or considered by Unum’s vocational rehabilitation counselor in 2016 should be included in the
A.R. To the extent information sources listed in the claims note authored by Richard Bayard on
January 22, 2016 (Dkt. No. 16-12 at 2) are not currently part of the A.R., those materials must be
added to the A.R. The opinion(s) from Unum’s vocational rehabilitation counselors in July 2007
and September 2008 also should be included in the A.R. (Dkt. Nos. 16-9; 16-10; 16-11). These
opinions from 2007 and 2008 were considered (and rejected) by Unum in 2016 (Dkt. No. 16-12
at 1). Because the 2016 opinion also makes reference to the informational sources that were – or
were not – relied upon or considered by the vocational rehabilitation counselors in 2007 and
2008, materials that were relied upon in 2007 or 2008 also should be added to the record to the
extent such materials can be accurately identified and retrieved at this time.
To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to add new vocational resource material to the A.R., a
point that is not entirely clear to the court, any such request is denied. Plaintiff was informed
that she could submit additional information to Unum even after the denial of her benefits appeal
(Dkt. No. 18-1 at 8). She apparently did not do so. The A.R. (as supplemented) will include
substantial evidence about the demands of Plaintiff’s occupation of pediatrician, including the
questionnaire she filled out and a job description for her specific position (Dkt. No. 18-2).
Contrast Orndorf, 404 F.3d at 520 (the record could be supplemented with evidence of a
claimant’s job duties “if that was omitted from the administrative record”). “ERISA benefitdenial cases typically are adjudicated on the record compiled before the plan administrator.”
Denmark, 566 F.3d at 10. Reconfiguring that record risks distorting judicial review. Id. For all
that appears from the pleadings, any new vocational resource material that Plaintiff proposes to
add at this stage “was known to her or could have been obtained by her, prior to [Unum’s]
13
decision on her appeal.” Warming, 663 F. Supp. 2d at 24. A claimant does not have “the right to
supplement the record before the court to add a more detailed and/or claimant-friendly job
description when both the job description of record and the proffered job information were
available to her prior to plan administrators’ adverse determination of her appeal.” Id.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement the Record is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part on the terms set forth in this Memorandum and Order. The parties are
directed to confer and file by no later than May 4, 2018 a joint proposal setting a schedule for
the filing of the supplemented administrative record and for the briefing of dispositive motion(s).
It is so ordered.
Dated: April 23, 2018
/s/ Katherine A. Robertson
KATHERINE A. ROBERTSON
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
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?