Hinman v. John Alden Life Insurance Company

Full title: TALIA HINMAN and MELINDA HINMAN, Plaintiffs, v. JOHN ALDEN LIFE INSURANCE…

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division

Date published: Feb 5, 2010

08-CV-1070-PK (D. Or. Feb. 5, 2010)

Opinion

08-CV-1070-PK.

February 5, 2010

ORDER

ANNA BROWN, District Judge

Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation (#31) on November 24, 2009, in which he recommended the Court deny Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (#8) and grant Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (#16). Plaintiffs filed timely Objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9^th Cir. 2003) ( en banc); United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9^th Cir. 1988).

Plaintiffs do not object to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to apply an abuse-of-discretion standard of review with a moderate level of scrutiny.

In their Objections, Plaintiffs reiterate the arguments in their Memorandum in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment and their Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to whether Defendant abused its discretion when it (1) applied the Policy definition of "experimental/investigational" treatment to Talia Hinman's treatment, (2) denied coverage for Talia Hinman's 12-month antibiotic treatment, and (3) refused to accept the lyme-disease diagnosis by Christine Green, M.D.

This Court has carefully considered Plaintiffs' Objections and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. The Court also has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation (#31) and accordingly, DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (#8), and GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (#16).

The Court directs the parties to file a stipulated form of judgment by February 19, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.