Opinion
No. 3:05CV00182 GH.
July 27, 2006
ORDER
On June 30th, plaintiff filed two motions to compel discovery and completion of the record. He argues that as he was injured on November 1, 2001, and the disability policy in the administrative record did not become effective until December 9, 2002, the administrative record does not contain the disability policy of insurance that was in effect at the time of his injury. Plaintiff states that defendant has refused to produce that policy and he believes that the policies at issue are not identical and material differences exist in the relevant definitions and coverage provisions.
The second motion contains the exhibits that were omitted in the first filing.
Defendant responded on July 10th that plaintiff applied for LTD benefits on April 22, 2004 so the plan governing his application was the one in effect since December 9, 2002, renderning the prior plan irrelevant as the Court's review is limited to the administrative record at the time of decision.
On July 21st, plaintiff filed a reply that an issue is whether plaintiff became disabled under the policy that was in effect in 2004 when he made his application for benefits or whether he became disabled at the time of his injury in 2001 and that the policy contains language that plaintiff's right to receive long term disability benefits will not be affected by any amendments after he became disabled so that if that same language is contained in the 2001 plan, then the plan in the administrative record is ineffective.
The Court finds that plaintiff's argument is persuasive, at this stage of the proceedings, to permit discovery of the 2001 plan.
Accordingly, the portions of plaintiff's June 30th motions (#31 and #32) to compel discovery are hereby granted while the issue of completion of the record is denied without prejudice to renew.
IT IS SO ORDERED.