Phillips v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company

Filing 24

ORDER regarding 20 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Supplement the Administrative Record. Having considered the matter and the law presented, the Motion for Leave to Supplement the Administrative Record 20 is denied. Ordered by Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett. (SLP)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
RONALD PHILLIPS,
Plaintiff,
V.
RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:14CV252

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Supplement the
Administrative Record. (Filing 20.) The motion will be denied.
BACKGROUND
In this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover benefits under an Employee Benefit Plan.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant wrongfully terminated his benefits under a disability
insurance policy. In terminating the benefits, Defendant determined that Plaintiff was no
longer totally disabled, and hence, not entitled to further benefits.
According to Plaintiff, at the time Defendant reached its determination that Plaintiff
was not totally disabled, Plaintiff had pending before the Social Security Administration an
appeal of his denial of social security benefits. Subsequently, on January 14, 2011, the
Social Security Administration issued an opinion finding that Plaintiff was disabled. Plaintiff
argues that the Social Security Administration’s decision should be made part of the
administrative record in this case.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff apparently does not dispute that the deferential abuse of discretion standard
applies to the Court’s review of the denial of his claim. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

has consistently concluded that when reviewing a claim for abuse of discretion, a court is
prohibited from considering additional evidence. See Willcox v. Liberty Life Assur. Co., 552
F.3d 693, 698 (8th Cir. 2009); Cash v. Wal-mart Group Health Plan, 107 F.3d 637, 641 (8th
Cir. 1997); Conley v. Pitney Bowes, 176 F.3d 1044, 1049 (8th Cir. 1999). Moreover, “[e]ven
when reviewing a plan’s decision de novo, courts are discouraged from considering evidence
in addition to that presented to the Committee.” Cash, 107 F.3d at 641-42 (internal quotation
omitted).
Having considered the matter and the law presented,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Supplement the Administrative
Record (filing 20) is denied.
DATED February 5, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
S/ F.A. Gossett
United States Magistrate Judge

2