Opinion
No. 99-1026-M
September 1, 2000
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This action is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docs. 18-20). Plaintiff has not responded to the Motion though given the opportunity to do so ( see Docs. 25, 28). After consideration of Defendants' Motion, Brief in Support, and the exhibits, the Motion is GRANTED for the reasons set out in Defendants' Brief.
Pursuant to the written consent executed by all parties and filed with the Court on January 13, 2000 (Doc. 10), this action was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings and order the entry of judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73 (Doc. 10).
However, in reviewing the Brief, the Court notes that some errors in citation were made ( see Doc. 19). Specifically, the Court makes the following corrections: on page 2, footnote 1, the Sauerhoff Deposition page cite should be 47; on page 3, footnote 3, "Exhibit 1, p. 2" should be added to the cite; on page 4, ¶ 11, the cite should be "Id. at CNA-034;" on page 10, after the block quote, the cite should be " Lee, 10 F.3d at 1549-50;" and on page 11, the reference to Brown should be page 532 rather than page 531. Though these errors did not affect the content of Defendants' argument, the Court thought that they should be noted.
Additionally, in reviewing the referenced authority cited by Defendants, the Court became aware of a higher standard of review when a fiduciary has a conflict of interest in administering benefits. See Brown v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, 898 F.2d 1556, 1566 and 1568 (11th Cir. 1990) (requiring that a fiduciary with a conflict "prove that its interpretation of plan provisions committed to its discretion was not tainted by self-interest" and show that it operated "exclusively in the interests of the plan participants and beneficiaries"), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 1040 (1991); see also Anderson v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Alabama, 907 F.2d 1072, 1075-76 (11th Cir. 1990); Lee v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield off Alabama, 10 F.3d 1547. 1550 (11th Cir. 1990)
The Court was initially concerned that a conflict existed in this action and that heightened review was required. However, after reconsidering the pertinent referenced materials in Defendants' Brief, the Court finds that no such conflict has been demonstrated or is apparent from the record before the Court. Plaintiff, by not responding to the Motion, has failed to assert otherwise or demonstrate to the Court any other reason why this Motion should not be granted.
Therefore, for the reasons set out in its supporting Brief, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Granting this motion disposes of all claims and issues raised in this action. Judgment will be entered by separate order.