PREZIOSO v. BAYER CORPORATION et al
Filing
35
OPINION & ORDER granting in part and denying in part 28 Motion to Remand. This case is REMANDED to the plan committee to complete the recordand to review Plaintiffs claim for benefits based upon the completed record. Defendants shall complete this review within 45 calendar days of the date of entry of this Order; and this case is STAYED pending completion of this review. The parties shall report to the Court in writing with the result of the appeal review within 50 calendar days of the date of entry of this Order. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 1/21/16. (sr, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
____________________________________
:
ALEXANDER N. PREZIOSO,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
Civil Action No. 14-3140 (SRC)
:
v.
:
:
OPINION & ORDER
BAYER CORPORATION et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
____________________________________:
CHESLER, U.S.D.J.
This matter comes before the Court on the motion to remand Plaintiff’s benefit claim for
voluntary appeal review by Defendants Bayer Corporation, Bayer Corporation Disability Plan, and
Matrix Absence Management (collectively, “Defendants”). For the reasons stated below, the
motion to remand will be granted in part and denied in part.
This case arises from a dispute over a denial of benefits between an insured and a benefit
plan, pursuant to ERISA. With this motion, Defendants ask this Court to Order a “voluntary”
remand review of Plaintiff’s claim for benefits, and to dismiss this case without prejudice.
Defendants now concede that the denial of benefits was based on an incomplete record, and have
offered Plaintiff the opportunity for a new appeal review based on a complete administrative
record. Plaintiff has rejected this offer, and Defendants now ask this Court to Order it.
Plaintiff opposes the motion, but does not articulate a legal basis for denying it. Plaintiff
agrees that the record is missing so many documents that it is a “Swiss cheese file.” (Pl.’s Opp.
Br. 8.) Remand for review may be an appropriate remedy when further development of the factual
record is called for. See Smathers v. Multi-Tool, Inc./Multi-Plastics, Inc. Employee Health &
Welfare Plan, 298 F.3d 191, 200 (3d Cir. 2002). Under these circumstances, it is both fair and an
efficient use of judicial resources to remand the matter to the plan committee for completion of the
evidentiary record and review of the full record. The motion for remand will be granted.
Plaintiff has objected to Defendants’ request to also dismiss this case, and this Court
agrees: there is no reason to dismiss the case. It is sufficient to stay this action for the period of
review and Order that the review be completed within 45 days of the date of entry of this Order.
The parties will be Ordered to report in writing with the result of the appeal review within 50 days
of the date of entry of this Order.
For these reasons,
IT IS on this 21st day of January, 2016,
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to remand Plaintiff’s benefit claim for voluntary
appeal review (Docket Entry No. 28) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and it is further
ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the plan committee to complete the record
and to review Plaintiff’s claim for benefits based upon the completed record; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants complete this review within 45 calendar days of the date of
entry of this Order; and it is further
ORDERED that this case is hereby STAYED pending completion of this review; and it is
further
ORDERED that the parties report to the Court in writing with the result of the appeal
review within 50 calendar days of the date of entry of this Order.
.
s/ Stanley R. Chesler
Stanley R. Chesler, U.S.D.J.
2
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?