Khan v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company

Filing 51

ORDER re 33 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 25 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment /Alternative Motion for Judgment Pursuant to Rule 52 filed by Farooq Khan, 23 MOTION Judgment on Administrative Record filed by Provid ent Life and Accident Ins. Co., finding that the parties have effectively stipulated to having this Court conduct a bench trial based solely on their submissions, in which the Court will make explicit findings of fact and conclusions of law. The part ies are directed to notify this Court in writing, via fax to 585-613-4065, within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, that they consent to the Court proceeding as indicated above. Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 4/5/19.. Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 4/5/19. (AFB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

FAROOQ KHAN, M.D.,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
No. 1:15-cv-00811(MAT)(LGF)

-vsPROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

INTRODUCTION
Farooq

Khan,

M.D.

(“Plaintiff”),

represented

by

counsel,

commenced this action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. (“ERISA”), asserting a
claim for declaratory relief requiring Provident Life and Accident
Insurance Company (“Defendant”) to pay disability benefits to
Plaintiff under the terms of an employer sponsored individual
disability insurance policy.
DISCUSSION
The case has come before this Court upon the Report and
Recommendation

(“the

R&R”)

(Docket

No.

33)

of

United

States

Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio, issued May 2, 2017, resolving
Defendant’s

Motion

for

Judgment

on

the

Administrative

Record

(Docket No. 23) and Plaintiff’s for Summary Judgment/Alternative
Motion for Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 (Docket No. 25,

-1-

superseding Docket No. 23).
The R&R recommended that both motions be denied and that the
matter be scheduled for a bench trial before the assigned district
judge. See R&R (Docket No. 33) at 3, 57. The R&R observed that
while Defendant had moved for judgment on the administrative record
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52, and Plaintiff had moved in the
alternative for that relief, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
“do not contemplate such a mechanism.” R&R at 31 (quoting Flanagan
v. First Unum Life Ins., 341 F.2d 119, 124 (2d Cir. 2003)); see
also O’Hara v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 642
F.3d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 2011) (stating that such a motion “does not
appear to be authorized in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”)
(quotation omitted). “If such a motion is treated as a summary
judgment motion, the district court must limit its inquiry to
determining

whether

questions

of

fact

exist

for

trial.”

Id.

(citation omitted). The Second Circuit has explained that “it may
be appropriate for the district court to treat such a motion as
requesting “essentially a bench trial ‘on the papers’ with the
District Court acting as the finder of fact.” Id. (quotation
omitted). “In that scenario, the district court may make factual
findings, but first it “must be clear that the parties consent to
a

bench

omitted).

trial
The

on

the

district

parties’
court,

submissions[.]”
in

that

Id.

situation,

(citation

“must

make

explicit findings of fact and conclusions of law” pursuant to Fed.

-2-

R. Civ. P. 52(a). Id. (quotation omitted).
Here,

the

R&R

found

that

because

the

parties

had

“not

stipulated to a summary trial or a bench trial on the papers, . .
. the district court [is] obliged to proceed in traditional summary
judgment fashion.” R&R at 42 (citation and quotation; internal
quotation marks omitted; ellipsis and alteration in original).
However, Defendant, in its Memorandum of Law (Docket No. 23-2),
stated

that

the

Second

motion—‘essentially

a

Circuit

bench

has

trial

confirmed
“on

the

that

“such

papers”’—is

a

the

appropriate procedure for review of an ERISA claims administrator’s
decision.” Id. at 1 n.1 (citing Muller v. First Unum Life Ins. Co.,
341 F.3d 119, 124 (2d Cir. 2003)). In its Objections, Defendant
takes issue with the R&R’s recommendation that a plenary bench
trial be conducted because there are issues of fact, and reiterates
that a decision should be rendered on the administrative record.
Defendant’s

Objections

(Docket

No.

40),

pp.

11-14

of

15.

Plaintiff, for his part, maintains that there are no issues of fact
and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law but, “if the
Court holds that there are triable issues of fact[,]” he “requests
judgment pursuant to Rule 52[,]” Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law
(Docket No. 25-3) at 5, i.e., a bench trial on the papers, see
Muller, 341 F.3d at 124.
CONCLUSION
Based on the Court’s reading of the parties’ briefs and other

-3-

submissions,

it

concludes

that

the

parties

have

effectively

stipulated to having this Court conduct a bench trial based solely
on

their

submissions,

in which

the

Court

will

make explicit

findings of fact and conclusions of law. The parties are directed
to notify this Court in writing, via fax to 585-613-4065, within
seven (7) days of the date of this Order, that they consent to the
Court proceeding as indicated above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Michael A. Telesca

________________________________
HONORABLE MICHAEL A. TELESCA
United States District Judge
Dated:

April 5, 2019
Rochester, New York

-4-