Anderson v. Life Insurance Company of North America
Filing
37
MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order-For the reasons stated above, the court sustains LINAs objection to Interrogatories 10 and 11. The court overrules LINAs objection to Interrogatories 16 and 17. It reverses Judge Wells ruling with respect to Interrogatory 13. LINA is therefore ordered to respond to Interrogatories 13, 16, and 17, but the time period is limited to claims from the past five years. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 5/22/12. (jmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
DAVID E. ANDERSON,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 2:11-cv-00347 CW
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH
AMERICA,
Defendant.
Judge Clark Waddoups
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
INTRODUCTION
On February 28, 2010, plaintiff David E. Anderson’s adopted son, Nicholas Johnson, died
at the age of twenty. Plaintiff had paid for a $10,000 insurance policy on the life of Nicholas.
Following his son’s death, Plaintiff submitted a claim under the policy to defendant Life Insurance
Company of North America (“LINA”). LINA denied the claim. Because LINA both administers
the plan at issue and determines whether a person is eligible for benefits, it has a “dual role conflict.”
Plaintiff sought discovery to determine whether that conflict played a role in the denial of benefits.
The Employment Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) governs this policy. LINA contends
that part of the discovery sought by Plaintiff is overly burdensome, especially since ERISA
discourages extensive discovery.
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells issued an order on January 19, 2012 that granted in part
and denied in part Plaintiff’s requested discovery. LINA filed an Objection to Judge Wells’ ruling
on the basis that it was clearly erroneous and contrary to law. The court sustains in part and
overrules in part LINA’s Objection.
BACKGROUND
As an employee of MarketFare Foods, Inc., Plaintiff was able to obtain life insurance
coverage for his dependent children. The policy at issue defines “dependent child” as “[a]n
Employee’s unmarried child who . . . is 19 or more years old, primarily supported by the Employee
and incapable of self-sustaining employment by reason of mental or physical handicap.” Group
Policy, 28 (Dkt. No. 7, Ex. 1). After Nicolas died, Plaintiff filed a claim with LINA and asserted that
Nicholas was a dependent child because he suffered from a Bipolar Disorder.
Carol Flippen (“Dr. Flippen”), a board certified physician in adult psychiatry, reviewed
Plaintiff’s claim. She determined there was insufficient evidence to support that Nicholas had a
Bipolar Disorder, and even if he did have the disorder, the “presence of a Bipolar Disorder is not
itself an indication of functional mental impairment and work incapacity.” Staffing Documentation
Form, 2 (Dkt. No. 21, Ex. 2 at 47). LINA subsequently denied Plaintiff’s claim because it concluded
that Nicholas was not a dependent child. LINA made this conclusion despite evidence from
Nicholas’s treating physician about his condition, tax records showing Nicholas’s inability to sustain
employment, and other documents showing Plaintiff financially supported Nicholas.
Plaintiff seeks discovery to learn whether LINA’s dual-role conflict played a role in the
denial and if LINA has a bias against claims founded on a subjective disability. Plaintiff served
twenty-two interrogatories on LINA, of which four are at issue now.1 They are as follows:
Interrogatory No. 10:
Please identify the number of claims received by LINA where the claim is in the
amount of $10,000 or less AND the beneficiaries’ sole basis or argument for benefits
1
Judge Wells denied Plaintiff’s motion with respect to Interrogatories 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15,
and 21. She granted Plaintiff’s motion with respect to Interrogatories 3, 6, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 22,
but LINA’s Objection only opposes answering Interrogatories 10, 11, 16, and 17.
-2-
is based on the insured’s inability to sustain him/herself financially due to suffering
from disability.
Interrogatory No. 11:
Please identify the number of claims received by LINA where the claim is in the
amount of $10,000 or less AND the beneficiaries’ sole basis or argument for benefits
is based on the insured’s inability to sustain him/herself financially due to suffering
from Bipolar Disorder.
Interrogatory No. 16:
Please identify the number of Flippen-reviewed claims in the amount of $10,000 or
less where the beneficiaries’ sole basis or arguments for benefits under such claims
were based on the insured’s inability to sustain him/herself financially due to
suffering from disability.
Interrogatory No. 17:
Please identify the number of Flippen-reviewed claims in the amount of $10,000 or
less where the beneficiaries’ sole basis or arguments for benefits under such claims
were based on the insured’s inability to sustain him/herself financially due to
suffering from Bipolar Disorder.
Judge Wells ordered LINA to respond to the above interrogatories, but she limited the time period
to data from the past five years.
ANALYSIS
Discovery is precluded in ERISA cases when its purpose is to supplement the administrative
record about eligibility for benefits. Eugene S. v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of N.J., 663 F.3d
1124, 1129 (10th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). When discovery pertains to “assessing dual-role
conflict of interest claims,” however, limited discovery is permissible. Id. A dual-role conflict
requires courts to “weigh the conflict of interest in its . . . analysis, but it must allocate the conflict
more or less weight depending on its seriousness.” Murphy v. Deloitte & Touche Group Ins. Plan,
619 F.3d 1151, 1157 (10th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). If an administrator “has a history of biased
claims administration,” the “conflict of interest weighs more heavily against [the] administrator.”
-3-
Id. at 1161 (citing Metro Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 117 (2008)). Absent discovery,
however, “a claimant may not have access to the information necessary to establish the seriousness
of the conflict.” Id. at 1158. Hence, discovery is permitted to assess a dual-role conflict.
Although discovery is permitted, courts must still determine whether the requested discovery
falls within the parameters of Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 1162. The
Tenth Circuit has admonished that a claimant cannot “use discovery to engage in unnecessarily broad
discovery that slows the efficient resolution of an ERISA claim.” Id. at 1162 63. LINA contends
that Judge Wells’ ruling failed to follow this requirement because she did not discuss the particular
burden LINA faces in responding to the interrogatories.
LINA asserts that it does not maintain a database and would have to manually review
thousands of files to respond to Interrogatories 10 and 11, and hundreds of files to respond to
Interrogatories 16 and 17. Temporary staff would have to be hired to conduct the review because
the burden on current staff would be too great. When these burdens are weighed against Plaintiff’s
need for the discovery, LINA contends its burden outweighs Plaintiff’s need. Because Judge Wells
did not address these particular burdens, LINA contends the court must reverse her ruling.
A review of Judge Wells’ ruling shows that she did consider the burden on LINA, even
though she may not have discussed the particular issues LINA has raised. LINA is not a small
company with limited staff. The fact that it has chosen not to maintain a database in this age of
technology cannot excuse it from discovery requests. The disparity between what Plaintiff presented
to LINA about Nicholas’s dependence and LINA’s conclusion makes Plaintiff’s requested discovery
more than just a fishing expedition. Its focus is to determine the strength of the conflict and any bias
in LINA’s claim reviews.
-4-
Nevertheless, the court concludes the interrogatories Judge Wells’ ordered LINA to respond
to do not adequately address the issues at hand. Conflict and bias are not determined by the total
number of claims handled in a particular category. Rather, they are determined by comparing the
total number of claims filed to the total number of claims denied in a particular category.
Interrogatories therefore need both components to render them helpful.
Thus, Interrogatories 10 and 11, which ask for the total number of claims in a particular
category, yield no information about bias unless LINA also answers Interrogatory 7. That
interrogatory states, “Please identify the number of claims received by LINA in the amount of
$10,000 or less and the number or percentage of such claims that LINA has denied.” From these
three interrogatories, one would know the total number of claims in a particular category, the total
number of denials, and the percentage of those denials that fall within the relevant category. The
court concurs with Judge Wells, however, that Interrogatory 7 is written broadly compared with other
more limited interrogatories. Consequently, it will not reverse that ruling. This conclusion
necessitates sustaining LINA’s objection to Interrogatories 10 and 11.
Interrogatories 16 and 17 are more limited in scope because they focus only on claims
reviewed by Dr. Flippen. Again, however, they need a predicate interrogatory from which
percentage information can be derived. Interrogatory 13 provides the needed information. It states,
“Please identify the number of Flippen-reviewed claims in the amount of $10,000 or less and the
number or percentage of such claims that LINA has denied.” By requiring LINA to answer this
interrogatory, along with Interrogatories 16 and 17, Plaintiff will be provided necessary information
about the strength of LINA’s conflict and any potential bias. The court therefore overrules LINA’s
objection to Interrogatories 16 and 17, and reverses Judge Wells’ ruling with respect to Interrogatory
-5-
No. 13. LINA is hereby ordered to respond to Interrogatory 13 as well, but the time period is limited
to claims from the past five years.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the court sustains LINA’s objection to Interrogatories 10 and
11. The court overrules LINA’s objection to Interrogatories 16 and 17. It reverses Judge Wells’
ruling with respect to Interrogatory 13. LINA is therefore ordered to respond to Interrogatories 13,
16, and 17, but the time period is limited to claims from the past five years.
DATED this 22d day of May, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
Clark Waddoups
United States District Judge
-6-
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?