Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

OTT v. LITTON INDUSTRIES

May 20, 2005.

JEANETTE OTT, Plaintiff
v.
LITTON INDUSTRIES, INC., sponsor and administrator of the LITTON INDUSTRIES, INC. EMPLOYEES' HEALTH/LONG-TERM DISABILITY PLAN ET AL., Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN E. JONES, District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

Pending before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 19) filed by Plaintiff Jeanette Ott ("Plaintiff") on March 1, 2005. We also have before us a Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 20) filed by Defendants Litton Industries, Inc. Employees' Health/Long Term Disability Plan and Unum Life Insurance Company of American (collectively "Defendants") on March 1, 2005.

  For the reasons that follow, we will grant Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and deny Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

  On April 8, 2004 Plaintiff filed a complaint against Litton Industries, Inc. ("Litton") and Unum Life Insurance Company of America ("Unum") in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania arising under the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (See Rec. Doc. 1). In Count I of the complaint, Plaintiff contended that Defendants failed to pay long-term disability benefits owed to Plaintiffs and Count II asserted a claim under Pennsylvania's Insurance Bad Faith Statute, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8371.

  On September 20, 2004, with consent of defense counsel, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, within which Plaintiff amended the names of the parties, alleged that subsequent to the filing of the complaint Defendants had issued an unfavorable decision regarding Plaintiff's disability benefit claim, and dropped the bad faith claim previously asserted. (See Rec. Doc. 14). Plaintiff named Litton Industries, Inc., Employees' Long-Term Disability Plan ("the Plan") and Unum as defendants (collectively "Defendants"). An answer was filed to the amended complaint on October 4, 2004. (See Rec. Doc. 15).

  Discovery in the above-captioned action closed on February 18, 2005. On March 1, 2005, both parties filed Motions for Summary Judgment, which have been briefed by the parties. The instant Motions are therefore ripe for disposition.

  STANDARD OF REVIEW:

  Summary judgment is appropriate if "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED .R. CIV. P. 56©); see also Turner v. Schering-Plough Corp., 901 F.2d 335, 340 (3d Cir. 1990). The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of showing "there is no genuine issue for trial." Young v. Quinlan, 960 F.2d 351, 357 (3d Cir. 1992). Summary judgment should not be granted when there is a disagreement about the facts or the proper inferences which a fact finder could draw from them. Peterson v. Lehigh Valley Dist. Council, 676 F.2d 81, 84 (3d Cir. 1982).

  Initially, the moving party has a burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corporation v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). This may be met by the moving party pointing out to the court that there is an absence of evidence to support an essential element as to which the non-moving party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Id. at 325.

  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that, where such a motion is made and properly supported, the non-moving party must then show by affidavits, pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, that there is a genuine issue for trial. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e). The United States Supreme Court has commented that this requirement is tantamount to the non-moving party making a sufficient showing as to the essential elements of their case that a reasonable jury could find in its favor. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322-23.

  It is important to note that "the non-moving party cannot rely upon conclusory allegations in its pleadings or in memoranda and briefs to establish a genuine issue of material fact." Pastore v. Bell Tel. Co. of Pa., 24 F.3d 508, 511 (3d Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). However, all inferences "should be drawn in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and where the non-moving party's evidence contradicts the movant's, then the non-movant's must be taken as true." Big Apple BMW, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 974 F.2d 1358, 1363 (3d Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 912 (1993) (citations omitted).

  Still, "the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) (emphasis in original). "As to materiality, the substantive law will identify which facts are material." Id. at 248. A dispute is considered to be genuine only if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS:

  We initially note that we will, where necessary, view the facts and all inferences to be drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party in our analysis of the pending motions.

  As of May 2, 2000, Plaintiff was an employee of Litton and was eligible to participate in the Plan. On or about May 2, 2000, Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident that caused or aggravated the following conditions: fibromyaligia, degenerative joint disease, back and neck muscle spasms, bursitis, chronic pain, including migraine headaches, and depression secondary to the chronic pain. Following the applicable elimination period, Plaintiff began receiving long-term disability benefits in the amount of $1098.23 per month on or about November 2, 2000. By letter dated April 4, 2002, the Plan's administrative agent, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MetLife") informed Plaintiff that the first 24-months of disability would end on November 1, 2002, and that MetLife would begin reviewing her claim for long-term disability ("LTD") benefits based upon whether she was precluded from performing "any job for which [she was] reasonably qualified based on [her] training, education and experience." (Defs.' SMF at ¶ 10).

  By letter dated February 24, 2003, MetLife informed Plaintiff that her benefits ceased as of November 1, 2002 because her claim did not meet the criteria for continued benefits under the Plan. The letter advised Plaintiff that she had 180 days after receipt of the denial letter to file an appeal for the termination of her benefits. By letter addressed to MetLife and dated August 1, 2003, Plaintiff's attorney appealed the denial of Plaintiff's claim. MetLife sent Plaintiff a letter on August 6, 2003, advising her that MetLife would rule on her appeal within 45 days of its receipt of the appeal, taking an additional 45 days if there were special circumstances requiring additional time for MetLife to complete the review, and if MetLife notified Plaintiff of the special circumstances in writing. By e-mail dated November 12, 2003, in response to a status inquiry, MetLife informed Plaintiff's attorney that its appeals unit determined Plaintiff's claim should be reinstated. The November 12, 2003 e-mail read as follows:
Our appeals unit determined that Ms. Ott's long-term disability claim was to be reinstated. As the disability carrier changed effective July 1, 2003 to Unum Provident, it was sent to them to reinstate as this is an advise to pay group it would need to go to the new carrier. I sent the file September 17, 2003. Per your voice mail advising that they have not received it, I have requested the file be printed again. I will FedEx this to them so that we have a way of tracking this. If you have further questions, please contact me. Rhonda Sangonette
See Rec. Doc. 22, Ex. Q.
  By e-mail dated January 14, 2004, Unum informed Plaintiff's attorney that review of Plaintiff's claim was continuing. Unum further informed Plaintiff's attorney that it would begin issuing LTD benefits as of January 1, 2004, and continue to pay benefits until Unum made a final determination on Plaintiff's claim. The e-mail addressed to Plaintiff's attorney reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
Until we have made a final determination on [Jeanette Ott's] eligibility for benefits, we will begin issuing benefits effective 1/1/04 and continue the monthly benefit until a final determination has been made. This payment or any possible future payments, until we advise you otherwise, are being made under Reservation of Rights. This means that payment cannot be construed as an admission of present or future liability, and we reserve the right to enforce any and all provisions of the plan.
See Rec. Doc. 23, Ex. S.

  Plaintiff states that as time passed and no final decision from Unum on the appeal was forthcoming, Plaintiff filed the instant action on April 8, 2004. Thereafter, on June 22, 2004, Unum issued a letter stating that Plaintiff's appeal was denied and her benefits were being terminated. Unum found Plaintiff to be ineligible for benefits beyond November 2, 2002. Additionally, the letter explains that Plaintiff failed to provide information sufficient to support the conclusion that she was unable to perform all sedentary jobs. Plaintiff characterizes the appeal denial as a denial on the basis of reports of two physicians who had never examined or even spoke to Plaintiff, and a rejection of the opinions of Plaintiff's family physician, her psychiatrist, and her orthopedist, to the effect that Plaintiff was incapable of any sort of work. Plaintiff also submits that the denial rejected the diagnoses of Plaintiff's neurologist, rheumatologist, and pain management specialist.

  DISCUSSION:

  In her Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff argues that Defendants' failure to decide her appeal from the termination of her disability claim in the time limits established by ERISA and Defendants' own policies allows the Court to review Plaintiff's disability status de novo. Plaintiff contends that the undisputed facts establish that the Plan Administrator violated Plaintiff's rights under ERISA by illegally delaying its decision on Plaintiff's appeal from the termination of her LTD benefits. (Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J. at ¶ 2). Plaintiff asserts that having been advised that, following her appeal, her claim was reinstated, Defendants are estopped from denying her appeal. Id. at ¶ 3. Moreover, Plaintiff submits that the undisputed facts indicate that the Plan Administrator abused its discretion in terminating Plaintiff's disability benefits, in that she is incapable of performing any gainful work. Id. at ¶ 4.

  Defendants counter by arguing in their Motion for Summary Judgment that there is no material issue of disputed fact on the question of whether Plaintiff is entitled to LTD benefits after November 2, 2002, under the terms of the Plan. (Defs.' Mot. Summ. J. at ¶ 3). Additionally, Defendants assert that an action to recover plan benefits under ERISA should be judicially reviewed under an arbitrary and capricious standard when, as in this case, the Plan expressly reserves discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the Plan to the Plan Administrator, and the Plan provides its Administrator with authority to delegate its duties. Defendants assert that Unum's decision that Plaintiff was not entitled to LTD benefits on or after November 2, 2002 was not arbitrary and capricious.

  A. Applicable Standard of Review

  Under ERISA, a court reviewing an administrator's decision to deny benefits is by default reviewed de novo, "unless the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine the employee's eligibility or construe the terms of the plan." Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115 (1989); Stratton v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 363 F.3d 250, 253 (3d Cir. 2004). If a plan provides discretionary authority to the administrator or fiduciary, then a reviewing court applies a form of arbitrary and capricious review. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 489 U.S. at 111-12, 115; see Mitchell v. Eastman Kodak Co., 113 F.3d 433, 437 (3d Cir. 1997). Discretionary authority can be provided for by express or implied language in the benefit plan. Luby v. Teamsters Health, Welfare, & Pension Trust, 944 F.2d 1176, 1180 (3d Cir. 1991). Whether that arbitrary and capricious review is heightened in any way depends on the presence of potentially conflicted ERISA fiduciaries and is determined on a sliding scale that we will discuss in further detail below. Pinto v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 214 F.3d 377, 379 (3d Cir. 2000).

  The scope of discovery depends upon the standard of review. In the Third Circuit, "a district court exercising de novo review over an ERISA determination between beneficiary claimants is not limited to the evidence before the Fund's Administrator." Luby, 944 F.2d at 1184-85. In sharp contrast, the record available to a court conducting an arbitrary and capricious review is the record made before the plan administrator, which cannot be supplemented during litigation. See Kosiba v. Merck & Co., 384 F.3d 58, 67 n. 5 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing Mitchell, 113 F.3d at 440). Nevertheless, when a reviewing court is deciding whether to employ the arbitrary and capricious ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.