Opinion
No. 4:03-cv-60.
June 17, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This is an action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1975 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. Currently pending is plaintiff's motion to supplement the administrative record and to allow plaintiff limited ERISA discovery [Court File #7]. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted and plaintiff permitted to conduct limited discovery.
In actions under ERISA seeking review of a denial of benefits, the usual discovery parameters do not apply. In such cases, a court's review of a decision to deny benefits under a qualified employee benefit plan is limited generally to the administrative record. Firestone Tire Rubber Company v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (1989). "The only exception to the above principle of not receiving new evidence at the district court level arises when consideration of the evidence is necessary to resolve an ERISA claimant's procedural challenge to the administrator's decision, such as an alleged lack of due process afforded by the administrator or alleged bias on its part." Wilkins v. Baptist Health Care Systems, Inc., 150 F.3d 609, 618 (6th Cir. 1998). Where the administrator or fiduciary is given discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits, as in this case, the administrator's or fiduciary's decision to deny benefits is reviewed under an arbitrary and capricious standard. Bruch, 489 U.S. at 115. Bias, conflict of interest, and denial of due process on the part of the plan administrator are relevant factors for the court to consider in deciding whether the decision to deny plaintiff benefits was arbitrary and capricious. Id. at 115.
In this case, plaintiff has alleged bias, conflicts of interest, and denial of due process on the part of the plan administrator. Plaintiff is entitled to limited discovery regarding those issues only. However, plaintiff has not specifically identified the discovery questions which she desires to have answered. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to take limited discovery will be GRANTED. However, that discovery will be limited to questions involving bias, conflict of interest, or denial of due process, and plaintiff will not be entitled to supplement the record with matters that are irrelevant at this time such as discovery questioning regarding the substantive merits of plaintiff's claim for benefits. Plaintiff should submit her requests for discovery to the defendants and defendants may object to any discovery seeking information not permitted by this memorandum and order.