The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Munley
Before the court is the defendant's motion for summary judgment in this case involving the denial of disability insurance benefits. The parties have briefed their respective positions, and oral argument has been held. The matter is thus ripe for disposition.
The underlying facts are generally not in dispute. Plaintiff Joseph Hillard is an employee of Smith Group Services Corp., a/k/a Smith Aerospace. Plaintiff was injured in a car accident on January 22, 2007. This accident caused him to be disabled from performing his job due to neck pain, shoulder pain and headaches.
He sought disability insurance benefits through a group insurance policy issued by Defendant Prudential Insurance Company of America, (hereinafter "Prudential" or "defendant"), which included both short and long-term disability plans. These plans fall under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (hereinafter "ERISA").
Beginning on January 23, 2007, plaintiff began receiving short-term disability benefits. He was notified, however, that the benefits would end on June 11, 2007. (Doc. 1, Complaint ¶ 12). Plaintiff appealed the defendant's decision to terminate his short-term disability benefits. (Id. ¶ 13). The plaintiff periodically provided additional medical evidence in support of his appeal through March 10, 1998. (Id. ¶ 14).
On April 9, 2008, the defendant denied plaintiff's appeal of the decision to terminate his short-term disability benefits. (Id. ¶ 16). Plaintiff asserts that his treating physicians never released him to work in any capacity during the pendency of this appeal. (Id. ¶ 15).
Plaintiff subsequently instituted the instant two-count action. The complaint contains the following two causes of action: Count I, Enforcement of benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA); and Count II, Bad Faith pursuant to 42 PENN. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 8371. At the close of discovery the defendant filed the instant motion for summary judgment.
We have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 29 U.S.C.1132(e)(1) (providing for jurisdiction in United States District Courts over claims for benefits under ERISA).
Granting summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Knabe v. Boury, 114 F.3d 407, 410 n.4 (3d Cir. 1997) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)). "[T]his standard provides that 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).
In considering a motion for summary judgment, the court must examine the facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. International Raw Materials, Ltd. v. Stauffer Chemical Co., 898 F.2d 946, 949 (3d Cir. 1990). The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could not return a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248 (1986). A fact is material when it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Id. Where the non-moving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the party moving for summary judgment may meet its burden by showing that the evidentiary materials of record, if reduced to admissible evidence, would be insufficient to carry the non-movant's burden of proof at trial. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Once the moving party satisfies its burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party, who must go beyond its pleadings, and designate specific facts by the use of affidavits, depositions, admissions, or answers to interrogatories showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324.
The standard of review for an action brought under section 1132(a)(1)(B) of ERISA is not set forth in the statute. The United States Supreme Court has held that courts should ordinarily apply a de novo standard of review in assessing a plan administrator's denial of ERISA benefits. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115 (1989). However, where the ERISA plan commits discretion to the plan administrator or fiduciary, as it does in the instant case, a deferential abuse of discretion standard is applied. Estate of Schwing v. The Lily Health Plan, 562 F.3d 522, 525 (3d Cir. 2009). Under the ...