Fix v. The Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company
Filing
36
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - adopting Findings and Recommendations re 33 Findings and Recommendations; denying 25 Motion for Summary Judgment; and granting 27 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 6/23/2017. (APP)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
LESLEY M. FIX,
FILED
JUN 23 2017
Clerk, U.S Courts
District Of Montana
Missoula Division
CV 16-41-M-DLC-JCL
Plaintiff,
ORDER
vs.
THE HARTFORD LIFE AND
ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMP ANY,
Defendant.
United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch entered his Findings and
Recommendation on March 6, 201 7, recommending denial of Plaintiff Lesley
Fix's ("Fix") motion for summary judgment. Fix timely filed objections and is
therefore entitled to de novo review of those findings and recommendations to
which she specifically objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). This Court reviews for
clear error those findings and recommendations to which no party objects. See
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach. , Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313
(9th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). "Clear error exists if
the Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed." United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000). Because
the parties are familiar with the factual background of this case, it will not be
-1-
repeated here.
As a threshold matter, Defendant The Hartford Life and Accident Insurance
Company ("Hartford") contends that Fix's objections fail to satisfy the
requirements set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this District's Local
Rules for lodging objections to proposed findings and recommendations by a
United States magistrate judge. Indeed, under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, "[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended
disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed
findings and recommendations." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (emphasis added). The
amount of specificity is further clarified by this Court's Local Rules, which hold
that an objection to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations must
itemize:
( 1) each factual finding of the magistrate judge to which objection is
made, identifying the evidence in the record the party relies on to
contradict that finding; and
(2) each recommendation of the magistrate judge to which objection
is made, setting forth the authority the party relies on to contradict
that recommendation.
L.R. 72.3(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C) ("Within fourteen days after being
served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such
proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of
-2-
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.").
Upon close review ofFix's objections, it appears that she slightly modified
her briefs in support of the motion for summary judgment to serve as her Rule 72
objections. (Compare Docs. 26 and 30, with Doc. 34.) Further, though these
objections discuss Judge Lynch's conclusions generally, Fix essentially recycles
her previous arguments in an attempt to relitgate her case. This is not the purpose
of28 U.S .C. § 636. See Kenneally v. Clark, CV-10-67-BU-RFC-JCL, 2011 WL
4959672, at *1 (D. Mont. Oct. 18, 2011) ("Objections to a magistrate's Findings
and Recommendations are not a vehicle for the losing party to relitigate its case.")
(citing Camarda v. General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan, 806
F.Supp. 380, 382 (W.D.N.Y.1992) ("There is no increase in efficiency, and much
extra work, when a party attempts to relitigate every argument which it presented
to the Magistrate Judge.")). Thus, as a result of Fix' s failure to specify her
objections in accordance with Rule 72, the Court is permitted to overrule the
objections without analysis. Kenneally, 2011 WL 4959672, at* 1 (citing Sullivan
v. Schriro, CV-04-1517-PHX-DGC, 2006 WL 1516005, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 30,
2006)).
Nevertheless, despite Fix's lack of specified objections to Judge Lynch's
legal conclusions, the Court is not relieved of its duty to review the Findings and
-3-
Recommendation. 1 Id. Upon review of the Findings or Recommendations, the
Court agrees with Judge Lynch that Fix's motion should be denied. Harfford's
decision to terminate Fix's disability insurance benefits was not an abuse of
discretion, or arbitrary or capricious. See Tapley v. Locals 302 and 612 of the
International Union of Operating Engineers-Employers Construction Industry
Retirement Plan, 728 F.3d 1134, 1139-1140 (9th Cir. 2013) (equating the abuse of
discretion standard with the arbitrary and capricious standard of review when
reviewing a denial of ERISA benefits).
As discussed by Judge Lynch, three physicians, Dr. Origitano, Dr. Trontel,
and Dr. Lavin, found that no restrictions should be imposed on Fix. These
findings were confirmed on independent review by Dr. Levy and on appeal by Dr.
Defilippis and Dr. Shah. Based upon these opinions and reports, the Court cannot
say that Harfford's decision to terminate Fix's benefits was arbitrary and
capricious. Further, though Dr. Lindsay's opinion that Fix is not restricted appears
to cite inconsistent findings, the Court cannot say that Hartford's conclusion that
Fix was not disabled was arbitrary and capricious.
1
The Court notes that various decisions in this district have applied differing standards of
review to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations when a party fails to specify its
objections in accordance with Rule 72. See Kenneally, 2011 WL 4959672, at* 1 (applying de
novo review); see also Johnson v. Mahoney, CV 08-43-H-DWM-RKS, 2008 WL 4425367, at* 1
(D. Mont. Sept. 30, 2008) (applying clear error review). Nevertheless, as discussed infra, the
Court finds no error in Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendations under either clear error or
de novo review.
-4-
Lastly, the Court is not persuaded by the remainder ofFix's arguments
which contend that Hartford's decision to terminate benefits was arbitrary and
capricious, specifically the arguments that: ( 1) Hartford could not terminate
benefits without determining ifFix's condition had improved; (2) Fix was disabled
as a result of her migraine headaches; (3) Hartford did not give adequate weight to
her subjective complaints of migraines and diminished cognitive abilities; (4)
Hartford improperly relied on non-examining medical care consultants; and ( 5)
Hartford failed to give adequate consideration to Fix' s March 2013
neuropsychological exam. The Court agrees with Judge Lynch that these
arguments fail to show that Hartford's decision terminate benefits was not
reasonable based upon the administrative record, an abuse of discretion, or
arbitrary and capricious.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
(1) Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 33) are
ADOPTED IN FULL;
(2) Plaintiff Lesley Fix's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 25) is
DENIED;
(3) Defendant The Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company's Cross
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 27) is GRANTED.
-5-
Dated this 23Y'Jaay of June, 2017.
Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge
United States District Court
-6-
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?