Opinion
No. 18-35178
05-31-2019
TODD J. MICKEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNUM GROUP, DBA Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 3:17-cv-05616-RJB MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 15, 2019 Seattle, Washington Before: W. FLETCHER and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and SILVER, District Judge.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The Honorable Roslyn O. Silver, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. --------
Todd Mickel appeals the district court's grant of a motion for judgment on the record under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52 by UNUM Group d.b.a. Paul Revere Life Insurance Company ("Paul Revere"). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts of the case, we do not recount them except as necessary.
This case arises from a challenge under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") to Paul Revere's decision to terminate Mickel's long-term disability benefits. Where, as here, a district court reviews de novo an ERISA plan administrator's decision, our review on appeal is for clear error. See Dowdy v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 890 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 2018); Muniz v. Amec Constr. Mgmt., Inc., 623 F.3d 1290, 1294 (9th Cir. 2010). As the district court correctly noted, Mickel bears the burden of proof to show disability. See Muniz, 623 F.3d at 1294. We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in determining that Mickel failed to meet his burden.
The district court relied on a combination of Dr. Peter Mohai's independent medical evaluation, the surveillance footage, and an independent review of Mickel's medical records. These sources contain sufficient evidence that Mickel's medical conditions are not totally disabling within the meaning of the plan such that we are not "left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Concrete Pipe & Prod. of Cal., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Tr. for S. Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
AFFIRMED.