Russell v. Catholic Healthcare Partners Employee Long Term Disability Plan et al

Filing 39

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation 35 Report and Recommendation; denying 23 Sealed Motion; granting 25 Motion for Order to Uphold the Administrative Decision. This case is Dismissed and Terminated on the docket of this Court. Signed by Judge Herman J. Weber on 2/25/13. (do1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

KAREN RUSSELL,
Plaintiff
v.

Case No. 1:11-cv-188-HJW

CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE
PARTNERS EMPLOYEE LONG
TERM DISABILITY PLAN, et al.,
Defendants

This matter is before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s
“Report and Recommendation” (doc. no. 35), plaintiff’s “Objections”
(doc. no. 37), and the defendants’ “Response” (doc. no. 38).

The

Magistrate Judge recommended that the defendants’ “Motion to
Uphold the Administrative Decision” (doc. no. 25) be granted, that
plaintiff’s “Motion to Reverse the Administrative Decision” (doc. no.
23) be denied, and that this case be dismissed.
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendations on
the grounds that his proposed findings are contrary to law.

2
Upon a de novo review of the record, and in light of plaintiff=s
objections, the Court finds that the issues have been adequately
addressed and properly resolved by the Magistrate Judge. The Court
finds

that

the

Magistrate

Judge

has

accurately

set

forth

the

controlling principles of law and properly applied them to the
particular facts of this case and agrees with the Magistrate Judge.
In a thorough and well-written analysis, the Magistrate Judge
explained that after Unum denied plaintiff’s administrative appeal on
July 20, 2010, plaintiff had more than six months to seek judicial
review before the three-year contractual limitations period expired on
February 10, 2011 (doc. no. 35 at 9-10). As plaintiff filed this complaint
for judicial review on March 30, 2011, this action is time-barred.
The Court further observes that even if not time-barred, plaintiff’s
action would fail on the merits. The record does not indicate that the
administrative decision to discontinue benefits was “arbitrary and
capricious.” Based upon the evidence of record, including the
functional capacity assessment and medical opinions indicating that
plaintiff could perform at least sedentary work on a full-time basis (and

3
thus, engage in “alternative gainful occupations”), Unum had a
reasonable explanation for discontinuing plaintiff’s long-term disability
benefits.
Accordingly,

the

Court

hereby

ADOPTS

the

Report

and

Recommendation (doc. no. 35). The defendants’ Motion to Uphold the
Administrative Decision (doc. no. 25) is GRANTED, and the plaintiff’s
Motion to Reverse the Administrative Decision (doc. no. 23) is DENIED.
This case is DISMISSED and TERMINATED on the docket of this
Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Herman J. Weber
Herman J. Weber, Senior Judge
United States District Court