Topits v. Life Insurance Company of North America
Filing
73
OPINION and ORDER - The Court has considered Mr. Topits' motion for judgment on the pleadings 18 and LINA's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings 33 , pursuant to Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court DENIES LINA's motion for judgment on the pleadings 33 and GRANTS Mr. Topits' motion for judgment on the pleadings 18 . The Court further GRANTS the parties' joint request for a hearing on the issue of prejudgment interest, which shall be held before the Magistrate Judge. Signed on 9/30/2013 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
MARK TOPITS,
Case No. 3:12-cv-00661-ST
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
NORTH AMERICA, A CIGNA
COMPANY,
Defendant.
Megan E. Glor and John C. Shaw, Megan E. Glor, Attorneys at Law, P.C., 621 S.W. Morrison
Street, Suite 900, Portland, OR 97205. Attorneys for Plaintiff.
William T. Patton and D. Michael Reilly, Lane Powell P.C., 601 S.W. Second Avenue,
Suite 2100, Portland, OR 97204. Attorneys for Defendant.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) provides that an ERISA plan
“participant” may bring a civil action in federal court “to recover benefits due to him under the
terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future
benefits under the terms of the plan[.]” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). Plaintiff Mark Topits
(“Mr. Topits”) brings this action to challenge the decision made by Defendant Life Insurance
Company of North America (“LINA”), a CIGNA Company, denying him long-term disability
(“LTD”) benefits under the terms of the Hawthorn Retirement Group LLC (previously named
PAGE 1 – OPINION AND ORDER
XL Management Group LLC) LTD Benefits Plan (the “Plan”), funded through a policy of
insurance issued by LINA effective March 1, 2007.
Mr. Topits worked as a maintenance director for XL Management Group LLC, a property
management company based in Bend. He asserts that he is totally disabled under the terms of the
Plan due to the cumulative effects of a stem cell transplant sequelae, including chronic graft
versus host disease (“GVHD”), bronchiolitis obliterans, and an incompletely reconstituted
immune system. LINA argues that the medical evidence does not establish that Mr. Topits is
totally disabled. Mr. Topits and LINA filed cross-motions pursuant to Rule 52 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, or in the alternative, cross-motions for summary judgment under
Rule 56. Dkts. 18, 33. For the reasons stated below, the Court concludes that Mr. Topits is
entitled to LTD benefits under the terms of the Plan.
Judge Stewart issued Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) in this case on April 11,
2013. Dkt. 48. Judge Stewart recommended that: (1) Mr. Topits’ motion for judgment under
Rule 52 or, in the alternative, for summary judgment under Rule 56 (Dkt. 18) be granted;
(2) LINA’s cross-motion and alternative motion (Dkt. 33) be denied; (3) a judgment in favor of
Mr. Topits be entered; and (4) a hearing set for Mr. Topits to present evidence to justify
awarding prejudgment interest at a rate higher than prescribed under 28 U.S.C. § 1961. Dkt. 48.
LINA timely filed objections to Judge Stewart’s F&R (Dkt. 52), to which Mr. Topits
responded. Dkt. 63. LINA objects to the entirety of the F&R on two grounds. First, LINA argues
that Magistrate Judge Stewart lacked jurisdiction to conduct a bench trial on the administrative
record in a “non-consent” case. Second, LINA contends that, on the merits, LINA properly
discontinued Mr. Topits’ LTD Benefits as of May 1, 2011.
PAGE 2 – OPINION AND ORDER
Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), and “[u]pon the consent of the parties, a fulltime United States magistrate judge . . . may conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury
civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). “Absent such
consent, however, the magistrate judge lacks jurisdiction, and any judgment entered is a nullity.”
Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1126 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that a magistrate judge had
jurisdiction by consent over a class action in a civil rights suit); see also Aldrich v. Bowen, 130
F.3d 1364, 1365 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that the magistrate judge’s dismissal of claims under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) and (a)(2) was invalid and that “[b]ecause the magistrate judge acted
without jurisdiction, the judgment is a nullity”); Estate of Conners v. O’Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 658
(9th Cir.1993) (holding that a magistrate judge’s judgment over a motion for attorney’s fees
without consent is a nullity). Consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) may be based on the express
or implied actions of a litigant. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding
that the court could infer consent where a party did not object to jurisdiction and then appeared
before the magistrate judge). In this case, however, LINA submitted a letter to the magistrate
judge expressly noting that this “is not a consent case.” Dkt. 53-1 at 2.
Accordingly, this Court has considered the parties’ arguments on the merits de novo. This
standard of review is consistent with the applicable ERISA benefits standard of review. See
infra. The Court has reviewed the parties’ submissions both to the Magistrate Judge and to this
Court on the pending cross motions, the administrative record, and the analysis set forth in the
F&R. To the extent this Court agrees with the analysis in the F&R, it adopts the F&R by
reference, rather than repeat identical findings of fact and conclusions of law.
DISCUSSION
A. Findings of Facts
The Court ADOPTS as its own the Findings of Fact from the F&R. Dkt. 48 at 3-13.
PAGE 3 – OPINION AND ORDER
B. Conclusions of Law
1. Legal Standards
An ERISA plan that does not contain language conferring discretion on the plan
administrator is subject to a de novo standard of review. See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v.
Bruch, 489 U.S., 101, 109, 115 (1989); Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 111 (2008).
Here, the Plan does not confer discretion on the plan administrator. AR 1-26. Dkt. 21-1.
Furthermore, the parties agree that a de novo standard of review applies in this case. Dkt. 19
at 11-12; Dkt. 34 at 16.
“When conducting a de novo review of the record, the court does not give deference to
the claim administrator’s decision, but rather determines in the first instance if the claimant has
adequately established that he or she is disabled under the terms of the plan.” Muniz v. Amec
Const. Mgmt., Inc., 623 F.3d 1290, 1295-96 (9th Cir.2010). The trial court performs an
“independent and thorough inspection” of the plan administrator’s decision in order to determine
if the plan administrator correctly or incorrectly denied benefits. Silver v. Executive Car Leasing
Long-Term Disability Plan, 466 F.3d 727, 733 (9th Cir. 2006). De novo review permits the trial
court to “evaluate the persuasiveness of conflicting testimony and decide which is more likely
true.” Kearney v. Standard Ins. Co., 175 F.3d 1084, 1095 (9th Cir. 1999). Furthermore, under de
novo review “the burden of proof is placed on the claimant.” Id. at 1294; see also Horton v.
Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 141 F.3d 1038, 1040 (11th Cir.1998) (the claimant “bears the
burden of proving his entitlement to contractual benefits”).
Here, the parties move in the alternative for judgment on the record or summary
judgment. Dkts. 18, 33. A trial on the administrative record, which allows a court to make factual
findings, evaluate credibility, and weigh evidence, is the appropriate proceeding to resolve the
dispute. See Rabbat v. Standard Ins. Co., 894 F. Supp. 2d 1311, 1314 (D. Or. 2012); see also
PAGE 4 – OPINION AND ORDER
Casey v. Uddeholm Corp., 32 F.3d 1094, 1099 (7th Cir. 1994) (on de novo review of an ERISA
benefits claim, the “appropriate proceeding[ ] . . . is a bench trial and not the disposition of a
summary judgment motion”); Lee v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan Long Term Disability Plan, 812
F. Supp. 2d 1027, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (“De novo review on ERISA benefits claims is
typically conducted as a bench trial under Rule 52.”); but see Orndorf v. Paul Revere Life Ins.
Co., 404 F.3d 510, 517 (1st Cir.2005) (“When there is no dispute over plan interpretation, the use
of summary judgment . . . is proper regardless of whether our review of the ERISA decision
maker's decision is de novo or deferential.”).
2. The Court Finds that Mr. Topits is Totally Disabled
The Court ADOPTS as its own the following Conclusions of Law from the F&R:
Sections I, II, III, IV, and V. Dkt. 48 at 13-20.
3. Pre-Judgment Interest
The Court ADOPTS as its own the following Conclusions of Law from the F&R:
Section VI. Dkt. 48 at 20-22. Both parties request a hearing to present evidence regarding the
actual financial losses Mr. Topits suffered as the result of LINA’s withholding of LTD benefits
under the Plan. The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Stewart that there must be sufficient
evidence to support a prejudgment interest rate above the rate prescribed in 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
Magistrate Judge Stewart should hold a hearing for Mr. Topits to present evidence of his actual
financial losses and should issue Findings and Recommendations on that question.
CONCLUSION
The Court has considered Mr. Topits’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 18)
and LINA’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 33), pursuant to Rule 52 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court DENIES LINA’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings (Dkt. 33) and GRANTS Mr. Topits’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 18).
PAGE 5 – OPINION AND ORDER
The Court further GRANTS the parties’ joint request for a hearing on the issue of prejudgment
interest, which shall be held before the Magistrate Judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 30th day of September, 2013.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge
PAGE 6 – OPINION AND ORDER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?