Ann Brock v. Wells Fargo & Company Health Plan et al

Filing 95

ORDER granting 86 Motion to Reopen Case; granting 93 Motion to Seal Document ; granting 92 motion requesting redaction. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 12/30/2013. (blf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:13cv176
ANN BROCK,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
Vs.
)
)
WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
)
HEALTH PLAN and UNITED
)
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen (#90). Plaintiff
wishes to submit certain additional documents to Defendant UBH, as claims administrator, for its
consideration on remand. Defendant opposes the consideration of this evidence, contending that
it is beyond the scope of the court’s previous Order (#85) remanding the case to UBH for
reconsideration based on additional evidence.
Having considered the motion and reviewed the pleadings, the court is of the opinion that
while Plaintiff’s new evidence may not have been contemplated by the court’s Order for remand,
the court will allow the submission of such evidence for consideration by UBH. Review of the
docket suggests that throughout this litigation the dispute over the completeness of the
Administrative Record has centered on only two documents: the letters from Drs. Lelio and
Rogers. See, e.g. Pl.’s Mot. Correct Adm. R. at ¶¶ 5,6, ECF No. 30 (“Plaintiff reviewed the
Administrative Record and found that two critical documents submitted to MES have been
omitted from the Administrative Record.”). However, other documents in the docket suggest the
contrary. For example, the original proposed Order for Stay and Remand, ECF No. 42-1 at ¶2,

submitted by Defendant, would have allowed Plaintiff “to submit any and all documentation she
desires.” While there is evidence on both sides of the issue, this court’s preference is for cases to
be decided on their merits and accordingly the court will allow Plaintiff to submit all four letters
and any other evidence she may have to Defendant UBH, as claims administrator for the plan,
for its review.
The court will consider such newly created evidence as new and material evidence as
provided by the sixth sentence of 42, United States Code, Section 405(g). See Perlman v. Swiss
Bank Corp. Comprehensive Disability Prot. Plan, 195 F.3d 975, 978-979 (7th Cir. 1999)
(analogizing remands in the context of ERISA to remands in the context of Social Security
decisions). Accordingly, the court enters the following Order.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen (#86) is
GRANTED and Plaintiff shall have seven days from the entry of this Order to submit any and
all relevant evidence to defendant UBH, who shall then have an additional 90 days from that date
to review Plaintiff’s Claim.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (#93) is GRANTED and
Exhibit B of her Reply Brief shall be filed UNDER SEAL.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Redaction (#92) is
GRANTED.
Signed: December 30, 2013