Smith v. Stancorp Financial Group

Filing 35

ORDER denying 33 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Alison Smith. Signed by Honorable Charles Goodwin on 02/08/2019. (jb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ALISON SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE STANDARD INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-16-953-G

ORDER
Plaintiff initiated this action to obtain judicial review of Defendant’s decision
terminating her long-term disability (“LTD”) benefits under its employee-benefit plan. See
Compl. (Doc. No. 1). The Court affirmed Defendant’s decision on November 16, 2018,
finding no abuse of discretion. See Order of November 16, 2018 (Doc. No. 31) at 10.
Plaintiff now moves the Court to reconsider its ruling. For the reasons set forth below,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Doc. No. 33) is denied.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Motions to reconsider, though “not formally recognized by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure . . . are routinely entertained, in one form or another, by federal courts.”1

1

Courts may construe a motion to reconsider either as a motion to alter or amend the
judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or as a motion for relief
from the judgment under Rule 60(b). See Commonwealth Prop. Advocates, LLC v. Mortg.
Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 680 F.3d 1194, 1200 (10th Cir. 2011). Where, as here, a
motion to reconsider is timely under both rules, the Court looks to the “reasons expressed
by the movant” to determine how to construe the motion. Id. (citation omitted). Because
Plaintiff’s motion claims that the Court made an error of law, and the grounds for relief do

Christ Ctr. of Divine Philosophy, Inc. v. Elam, No. CIV-16-65-D, 2018 WL 1770491, at
*1 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 12, 2018), appeal docketed, No. 18-6089 (10th Cir. May 15, 2018).
Reconsideration may be predicated on one or more of three grounds: “(1) an intervening
change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, [and/or] (3) the
need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Servants of Paraclete v. Does,
204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). Thus, a motion to reconsider “is appropriate where
the court has misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law.” Id. “It
is not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have
been raised in prior briefing.” Id.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff grounds her Motion to Reconsider on a recent decision from this Court,
Clark v. Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Co., No. CIV-15-15-D, 2018 WL 4502334 (W.D. Okla.
Sept. 20, 2018) (DeGiusti, J.), wherein the Court reversed a decision terminating the
plaintiff’s LTD benefits, finding that the defendant had failed to adequately explain the
grounds for its decision. See id. at *4. Plaintiff points out that the court in that case
criticized the defendant for failing to adequately consider the plaintiff’s award of disability
benefits by the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) and flagged that failure as a
“‘factor counseling reversal.’” Id. (quoting Krum v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 942
F. Supp. 2d 1171, 1181 (D. Utah 2013)).

not otherwise reflect those applicable to a Rule 60(b) motion, the Court construes
Plaintiff’s motion as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter the judgment. See id.
2

As an initial matter, Clark does not represent an “intervening change in controlling
law” insofar as it is not precedential authority. See Ferrell v. BGF Glob., LLC, No. CIV15-404-D, 2017 WL 4898843, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 30, 2017). Nor has Plaintiff
submitted any new evidence for the Court’s consideration. Therefore, reconsideration
should be granted only if it is necessary “to correct clear error or prevent manifest
injustice.” Servants of Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012.
In Clark, unlike the present case, the district court was called upon to determine, de
novo, “whether the plaintiff’s claim [was] supported by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Clark, 2018 WL 4502334 at *3. In ordering reversal, the court necessarily determined that
the defendant’s decision was not so supported. That the defendant “fail[ed] to consider a
disability finding from the SSA” was cited as an additional “factor supporting reversal.”
Id. But in the present case, the parties agreed—and the Court found—that because
Defendant’s ERISA-governed plan gave its administrator discretionary authority to
determine eligibility for benefits, the decision denying Plaintiff benefits may not be
disturbed unless it is found to be “arbitrary and capricious.” See Order of November 16,
2018, at 3-4. That standard was not met in this case, where Defendant provided a detailed
explanation of its decision, cited evidence supporting Defendant’s determination that
Plaintiff could perform sedentary work, and discussed some countervailing evidence. See
id. at 4-10; R. (Doc. No. 18) at 205-17, 234-44; R. at 210-211 (describing findings of
consulting neurologist and consulting internist).
The present case is also distinct from Krum, the decision relied on in Clark. In
Krum, the district court held that an SSA decision to award disability benefits constituted
3

“persuasive evidence” that the plaintiff was “in fact, unable to work” and that the
defendant’s failure to address such evidence was “a factor counseling reversal.” Krum,
942 F. Supp. 2d at 1180-81. The court went on to hold that, in light of “the paucity of
evidence supporting the argument that [the plaintiff] could work,” the defendant’s failure
to consider the SSA award was an abuse of discretion. Id. at 1180. In the present case,
Defendant’s decision denying benefits cites supporting evidence, including materials that
would not have been presented to the SSA. See Order of November 16, 2018, at 4-10; R.
at 205-17, 234-44. Thus, while a substantive discussion of Plaintiff’s SSA award might
have been preferred, its absence from Defendant’s decision does not render that decision
arbitrary and capricious.
CONCLUSION
For the above-stated reasons, the Court is not persuaded that reconsideration is
necessary to correct clear error or to prevent injustice. Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider
(Doc. No. 33) is therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of February 2019.

4