Tweed v. King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Severance Plan: Tier II et al

Filing 39

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 36 Report and Recommendations ; denying 21 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; granting 24 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. See order for details. Signed by District Judge J Ronnie Greer on 3/11/2014. (RLC, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT GREENEVILLE

JUDY A. TWEED
Plaintiff,
v.
KING PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO.: 2:12-CV-413

ORDER
This matter is before the Court to consider the Report and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge dated January 13, 2014, [Doc. 36]. In that Report and Recommendation,
the Magistrate Judge recommends that plaintiff’s “Motion for Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
Proc. 54(a),” [Doc. 21], be denied and that defendants’ “Motion for Judgment on the
Administrative Record, [Doc. 24], be granted. The plaintiff has filed objections to the Report
and Recommendation, [Doc. 37].
After careful de novo consideration of the record as a whole, and after careful
consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and for
the reasons set out in that Report and Recommendation which are incorporated by reference
herein and with the modification set forth below, it is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiff’s
objections are OVERRULED, that this Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and
APPROVED, [Doc. 37], that plaintiff’s “Motion for Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc.
54(a),” [Doc. 21], is DENIED, and defendants’ “Motion for Judgment on the Administrative
Record, [Doc. 24], is GRANTED.

The plaintiff is correct in that the Report and Recommendation did not address the
plaintiff’s claim of a conflict of interest. The plaintiff argues that the defendant both insures and
administers the plan at issue here. “This dual function creates an apparent conflict of interest.”
Glenn v. MetLife, 461 F.3d 660, 666 (6th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted), aff’d,
128 S. Ct. 2343 (2008) (upholding decision solely regarding conflict-of-interest issues; certiorari
only granted as to that issue). To be sure, a conflict of interest is a factor in determining whether
a decision was arbitrary or capricious. Id. Thus, this Court will consider this conflict in making
its determination. In so doing, this Court notes that the plaintiff merely points out that the
conflict exists and offers nothing more other than an alleged failure to fully investigate the
circumstances surrounding the departure of the 37 other employees.
The Administrative Record shows that Pfizer investigated the departure of the 37
employees, albeit not to plaintiff’s preference for thoroughness. The Record also shows that the
Administrative Committee reviewed each of the plaintiff’s allegations. Moreover, the Record
shows that Pfizer has taken steps to eliminate bias in its claims administrations as is evidenced
by Ms. Heron’s affidavit. When weighing the alleged conflict and the other evidence in the
record, there is not enough to establish that the defendant acted arbitrarily or capriciously. Thus,
this objection is OVERRULED.
E N T E R:
s/J. RONNIE GREER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE