Opinion
Case No. 2:02-CV-43 ST
May 22, 2003
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On December 19, 2002, defendant Standard Insurance Company ("Defendant") filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing, under the de novo standard of review, that Plaintiff's ERISA claim fails as a matter of law because the record supports the plan administrator's denial of Plaintiff's long-term disability claim. On January 17, 2003, Plaintiff responded and on February 5, 2003, Defendant filed its Reply. Upon consideration of the Motion, the memoranda, and being otherwise fully informed, the Court will GRANT Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment for the reasons set forth below:
Standard Insurance Company is the only remaining defendant. Valley Mental Health was voluntarily dismissed from the case on April 30, 2002.
DISCUSSION
Summary judgment is appropriate only "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In reviewing the record, the Court views the evidence and draws any inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Coosewoon v. Meridian Oil Co., 25 F.3d 920, 929 (10th Cir. 1994). Accepting all of the facts in the light most favorable to non-moving party, the Court finds as follows:As the Plaintiff has conceded, the appropriate standard of review that should be applied in this case is de novo. Ray v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of America, 314 F.3d 482, 485-86 (10th Cir. 2002). Further, the parameters of the scope of review under the de novo standard are set forth at length in Hall v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of America, 300 F.3d 1197, 1201-03 (10th Cir. 2002). After reviewing the different approaches taken by the circuits, the Tenth Circuit in Hall agreed with the Fourth Circuit's approach and stated that ordinarily, a de novo review will be restricted to the administrative record, but the record can be supplemented "`when circumstances clearly establish that additional evidence is necessary to conduct an adequate de novo review of the benefit decision.'" Id. at 1202 (internal citation omitted).
Applying the above, the Court finds the Plaintiff has failed to show the manner or extent to which the conflict of interest affected Defendant's decision-making process, how additional evidence would be relevant to the conflict or would address any shortcomings in the record. Without such evidence, this Court finds there is no basis on which to allow additional evidence. Accordingly, the Court's de novo review will be limited to the administrative record.
Additionally, the Court finds the Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden in opposing the summary judgment motion. Pursuant to DUCivR 56-1,
[a] memorandum in opposition to a motion for summary judgment must begin with a section that contains a concise statement of material facts as to which the party contends a genuine issue exits. . . . All material facts of record . . . that are set forth with particularity in the statement of the movant will be deemed admitted for the purpose of summary judgment, unless specifically controverted by the statement of the opposing party identifying material facts of record meeting the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.
The Plaintiff's Brief In Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment raises no material facts to preclude the entry of summary judgment. The Plaintiff asserts that there is a genuine issue as to the material facts but does not provide the Court with any citation to any evidence in the record, by way of affidavit, deposition testimony, or the administrative record. Further, the Plaintiff does not controvert any of the material facts submitted by Defendant in its Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff only asserts the motion is "too premature and wrong," without providing citations to support this assertion.
Further, it appears from Defendant's Motion and supporting documentation, they would otherwise be entitled to summary judgment. Defendant reviewed medical records from five different physicians who had been treating Plaintiff and concluded the Plaintiff was not disabled or unable to work. Further, the Plaintiff was entitled and did appeal Defendant's denial of benefits. Each time Plaintiff appealed, another independent review was conducted. Each time, Defendant concluded the Plaintiff was not entitled to benefits. Throughout its evaluation process, Defendant continually invited and allowed Plaintiff the opportunity to submit new evidence to support a claim of disability and Plaintiff failed to supply convincing evidence of any disability that would warrant long-term disability benefits.
For the above stated reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Given that the Plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal on April 30, 2002, against Valley Mental Health, the clerk of court is directed to close this case.
SO ORDERED.