Richard v. Fleet Financial Group Incorporated LTD Employee Benefits Plan et al

Filing 63

ORDER: that deft's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; Pltf's cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED; and the amended complaint is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 5/6/2009. (see)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ PATRICIA LYNN RICHARD, Plaintiff, vs THE HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ APPEARANCES: LEGAL SERVICES FOR THE ELDERLY Attorneys for Plaintiff 130 w, 42ND Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10036-7803 COOPER, EVING & SAVAGE LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff 39 North Pearl Street - 4th Floor Albany, New York 12207 OF COUNSEL: GARY S. STONE, ESQ. CHRISTOPHER DAGG, ESQ. 6:06-CV-965

BRIAN W. MATULA, ESQ. PHILIP G. STECK, ESQ.

SCHRADER, ISRAELY, DeLUCA & WATERS, LLP Attorneys for Defendant R. SCOTT DeLUCA, ESQ. 2821 Wehrle Drive, Suite 3 W illiamsville, New York 14221 DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge ORDER Defendant, Hartford Accident and Life Insurance Company, moves for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's amended complaint for long-term disability benefits ("LTD Benefit") under a policy issued to plaintiff's former employer. Plaintiff opposes and crossmoves for summary judgment granting her LTD Benefits on the grounds that the defendant's decision to deny was arbitrary and capricious.

Oral argument was heard on April 21, 2009, in Utica, New York. Decision was reserved. Upon a detailed review of all the submissions, including the administrative record, the defendant's decision to deny plaintiff's claim for LTD Benefits was supported by substantial evidence including, but not limited to, physicians' reports and opinions, a medical review, video surveillance, and plaintiff's statements. Although one might disagree with the final decision, after two appeals, it was clearly not arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, it is ORDERED that 1. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; 2, Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED; and 3. The amended complaint is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 6, 2009 Utica, New York.

-2-