Opinion
2:16-cv-01700 WHO
07-06-2021
FADI G. HADDAD, M.D., Plaintiff, v. SMG LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN, AND HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.
FINAL JUDGMENT
WILLIAM H. ORRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
As a result of certain rulings by this Court at ECF # 91 and #124 and the settlement of other outstanding issues between parties, as more fully described below, the Court now enters JUDGMENT in favor of Defendant Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Company (“Hartford”) and against Plaintiff Fadi G. Haddad (“Dr. Haddad”) based on the following.
1. Dr. Haddad filed a lawsuit seeking disability benefits from Hartford captioned Fadi G. Haddad, M.D. v. SMG Long-Term Disability Plan and Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company, now pending as No. 2:16-cv-01700-WHO in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California (“the Lawsuit”).
2. In the Lawsuit, among other things, Dr. Haddad alleged entitlement to long-term disability benefits (“LTD Claim”) under the Sutter Medical Group (“SMG”) Long Term Disability Plan (“LTD Plan”) funded through a group booklet/certificate of insurance issued by SMG under Group Disability Policy No. GVL-16008 (“LTD Policy”).
3. Dr. Haddad submitted his LTD Claim to Hartford, and after investigation and review, Hartford approved Dr. Haddad's LTD Claim with benefits beginning September 2015, based on Hartford's calculation of Dr. Haddad's pre-disability earnings (“PDE”) as determined by the terms of the Plan/Policy.
4. Following the approval of the LTD Claim by Hartford, the parties disputed: (i) whether a portion of Dr. Haddad's settlement with the Hilton Hotels could be offset under the terms of the Policy/Plan (the “Hilton offset issue”); (ii) whether Dr. Haddad was entitled to prejudgment interest in this litigation (the “Prejudgment interest issue”); and (iii) the calculation of the PDE amount by Hartford under the Plan/Policy (the “PDE dispute”).
5. After briefing by the parties on the Hilton offset issue, this Court issued its decision on September 22, 2020 [Doc No. 91], finding that Hartford was permitted to offset $799,177.42, the net amount of the third-party settlement Dr. Haddad had received from Hilton Hotels, as covering lost income.
6. After briefing by the parties on the Prejudgment interest issue, this Court issued its decision on May 28, 2021[Doc No. 124], finding that Dr. Haddad was not permitted prejudgment interest on his LTD benefits.
7. The Parties resolved the PDE dispute by executing a Mutual Settlement and Release Agreement effective June 16, 2021.
8. As a result, this Court found all claims in the operative complaint against
Hartford had been resolved by settlement or order of the Court and ordered the Parties to propose a final form of judgment by June 27, 2021. Having reviewed the competing proposals, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that judgment be entered in favor of Defendant Hartford and against Plaintiff Dr. Haddad as to the Hilton Offset issue and the Prejudgment interest issue. The action is dismissed with prejudice.