Darrah v. Montana Retail Store Employees Health and Welfare Plan et al

Filing 56

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 48 Granting 28 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by International Rehabilitation Associates; Granting in Part and Denying in Part 32 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Beverly Darrah; and Granting [ 40] Motion for Summary Judgment filed by International Rehabilitation Associates. Darrah's request for Attorney's Fees is Denied. Signed by Judge Richard F. Cebull on 5/14/2009. (EMA) Modified on 5/14/2009 to indicate hard copies mailed to J. Voiland, S. Huck (TMD, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA B I L L I N G S DIVISION

B E V E R L Y DARRAH,

) ) P l a i n t if f , ) ) vs. ) ) ) M O N T A N A RETAIL STORE ) E M P L O Y E E S HEALTH AND ) W E L F A R E PLAN, ZENITH ) A D M I N I S T R A T O R S , and ) I N T E R N A T I O N A L REHAB. ) A S S O C ., INC. d/b/a INTRACORP ) or CARE ALLIES, ) ) D e f e nd a n t s . ) ________________________________)

C V -0 8 -6 7 -B L G -R F C

O R D E R ADOPTING FINDINGS A N D RECOMMENDATIONS OF U .S . MAGISTRATE JUDGE

P la intiff Beverly Darrah filed the instant action pursuant to the Employee R e tire me nt Income Security Act ("ERISA") to receive medical benefits for back p ro b le ms and to recover any penalties, fees, and costs allowed by ERISA. On M a rc h 31, 2009, United States Magistrate Judge Carolyn S. Ostby entered her

1

Findings and Recommendation (Doc. 48) with respect to various motions, re c o mme nd ing they be granted or denied as follows: (1 ) D e fe nd a nt Care Allies'1 Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28) s ho uld be GRANTED; P la intiff Darrah's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 32) s ho uld be DENIED to the extent that it relates to her claim for benefits a nd request for attorney's fees, but GRANTED to the extent that D e fe nd a nt Zenith be assessed a fine of $10,710.00 for its failure to p ro d uc e Plan documents requested by Darrah; and D e fe nd a nt Care Allies' Motion for Summary Judgment on Darrah's C la ims under 29 U.S.C. §§ 1024 & 1132(c) (Doc. 40) should be G R AN TED .

(2)

(3 )

U p o n service of a magistrate judge's findings and recommendation, a party ha s 10 days to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff filed o b je c tio ns on April 8, 2009 (Doc. 51), to which Care Allies responded on April 21, 2 0 0 9 (Doc. 53). Defendant Montana Retail Store Employees Health and Welfare P la n ("the Plan") and Defendant Zenith Administrators ("the Plan Administrator") file d an limited objections on April 14, 2009 (Doc. 52), to which Plaintiffs re s p o nd e d on April 28, 2009 (Doc. 55). These objections require this Court to ma k e a de novo determination of those portions of the Findings and R e c o mme nd a tio ns to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This Court will follow Magistrate Judge Ostby's lead in referring to Defendant International Rehabilitation Associates as Care Allies. See Doc. 48, n.2. 2

1

The Plan and the Plan Administrator object to Magistrate Judge Ostby's c o nc lus io n that a fine should be imposed on the Plan Administrator. Specifically, the y claim the request made by Darrah's attorney for plan documents was ins uffic ie nt, seemingly because it was not addressed to the Plan Administrator. Regardless, Magistrate Judge Ostby has already rejected this argument. Although the request was not specifically addressed to Zenith, its files indicate it received the re q ue s t, but did not act on it. This objection is overruled. D a rra h offers several general objections to Magistrate Judge Ostby's Findings a nd Recommendations, but with one exception, Darrah does not explain why her o b je c tio ns should be sustained. The fact is, Magistrate Judge Ostby carefully c o ns id e re d the law and the facts and concluded that the Plan Administrator did not a b us e its discretion in denying authorization for lumbar fusion surgery. This Court a gre e s . T he one objection Darrah supports with at least some argument is that M a gis tra te Judge Ostby incorrectly stated that "Darrah did not further appeal to p re s e nt evidence to contradict the finding" that Darrah had degenerative disc d is e a s e at four levels of her lumbar spine. Regardless, that Darrah's counsel wrote a letter intended to function as a notice of appeal does not change the outcome here.

3

The issue is whether the denial of authorization was arbitrary and capricious. This C o urt agrees with Magistrate Judge Ostby that it was not. After a de novo review, the Court determines the Findings and R e c o mme nd a tio n of Magistrate Judge Ostby are well grounded in law and fact and H E R E B Y ORDERS they be adopted in their entirety. A c c o rd ingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: (1 ) D e fe nd a nt Care Allies' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28) is G R AN TED ; D a rra h' s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 32) is DENIED to the extent that it relates to her claim for benefits, but GRANTED to the extent that Defendant Zenith be assessed a fine of $10,710.00 for its failure to produce Plan documents requested by Darrah; D e fe nd a nt Care Allies' Motion for Summary Judgment on Darrah's C la ims under 29 U.S.C. §§ 1024 & 1132(c) (Doc. 40) is GRANTED; a nd D a rra h' s request for attorney's fees is DENIED.

(2)

(3 )

(4 )

T he Clerk of Court shall notify the parties of the entry of this Order. D A T E D the 14th day of May 2009.

_ /s / Richard F. Cebull______________ R IC H A R D F. CEBULL U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4