From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Simonia v. Glendale Nissan/Infiniti Disability Plan

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 12, 2010
378 F. App'x 725 (9th Cir. 2010)

Summary

finding that "mental disorder" defined by DSM under plan was unambiguous, clear, and exclusion enforceable

Summary of this case from Principal Life Ins. Co. v. Doctors Vision Ctr. I, PLLC

Opinion

No. 09-55569.

Submitted May 3, 2010.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed May 12, 2010.

Charles Fleishman, Law Offices of Charles J. Fleishman, A Professional Corporation, Northridge, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Daniel William Maguire, Esquire, Burke Williams Sorensen, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Victor B. Kenton, Magistrate Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:07-cv-08090-VBK.

Before: O'SCANNLAIN and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and LEFKOW, District Judge.

The Honorable Joan H. Lefkow, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Plaintiff-Appellant Aleck Simonia ("Simonia") appeals a district court decision and judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees Glendale Nissan/Infiniti Disability Plan and the Hartford Insurance Company ("Hartford") following a one-day bench trial in his Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") action seeking continuing long-term disability benefits for depression. The parties are familiar with the facts of the case and we do not repeat them here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm the judgment of the district court.

We need not reach Simonia's argument regarding the appropriate standard of review, because we agree with the district court that "even if [we] adopted a de novo standard of review, the conclusion would be the same." Simonia v. Hartford Ins. Co., 606 F.Supp.2d 1091, 1098 (C.D.Cal. 2009).

Hartford did not err in determining that Simonia was no longer physically disabled. Even assuming that Hartford violated 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1(h)(3)(iv) by failing to identify the "Rehabilitation Clinical Case Manager" by name, Simonia points to no prejudice resulting from such violation that would merit any relief. See Parker v. BankAmerica Corp., 50 F.3d 757, 769 (9th Cir. 1995). Because the 2007 Assessment of Employability explained the underlying methodology for its conclusion, we are satisfied that Hartford substantially complied with ERISA claims procedures and therefore provided Simonia's claim the requisite full and fair review. See Brogan v. Holland, 105 F.3d 158, 165-66 (4th Cir. 1997).

Hartford similarly did not err in classifying Simonia's diagnosis of depression as a "mental disorder" subject to the plan's twelve-month payment limit. Here, unlike in Kunin v. Benefit Trust Life Insurance Co., 910 F.2d 534, 541 (9th Cir. 1990), and Patterson v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 11 F.3d 948, 950 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam), the doctrine of contra proferentem does not apply. Under the plan, "`Mental Disorder' means a disorder found in the current diagnostic standards manual of the American Psychiatric Association." Simonia's psychiatrist, Dr. Lukas Alexanian, repeatedly diagnosed Simonia as "depressed" and "severely depressed." The "current diagnostic standards manual of the American Psychiatric Association" is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition Text Revision. Depressive disorders are "found" on pages 369 to 382. See Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition Text Revision (2000) at 369-82.

Simonia's depressive disorder is unambiguously a "mental disorder" under the plain language of the plan, and as a result, the doctrine of contra proferentem does not apply. Cf. Kunin, 910 F.2d at 541. Simonia's argument that his depression is caused by a prior physical disorder is thus unavailing. See id. Hartford did not err by invoking the plan's twelve-month limitation on disability payments for mental disorders.

Simonia's separate appeal seeking attorney fees — No. 09-56025 — has been held in abeyance pending the Supreme Court's disposition of Hardt v. Reliance Standard Insurance Co., Sup. Ct. No. 09-448. This disposition shall have no effect on the order of abeyance in that case.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Simonia v. Glendale Nissan/Infiniti Disability Plan

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 12, 2010
378 F. App'x 725 (9th Cir. 2010)

finding that "mental disorder" defined by DSM under plan was unambiguous, clear, and exclusion enforceable

Summary of this case from Principal Life Ins. Co. v. Doctors Vision Ctr. I, PLLC
Case details for

Simonia v. Glendale Nissan/Infiniti Disability Plan

Case Details

Full title:Aleck SIMONIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GLENDALE NISSAN/INFINITI DISABILITY…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: May 12, 2010

Citations

378 F. App'x 725 (9th Cir. 2010)

Citing Cases

Simonia v. Glendale Nissan/Infiniti Disability Plan

See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g). We affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of his former…

Principal Life Ins. Co. v. Doctors Vision Ctr. I, PLLC

Such a decision is consistent with the well-reasoned authorities from other jurisdictions that have…