Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Shanna M. Staats v. Procter & Gamble Long Term Disability Allowance Plan

August 27, 2012


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mitchell, Magistrate Judge:


Presently before the Court is the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and expenses. For reasons discussed below, the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and expenses (Document No. 27) will be denied.

On October 17, 2011, the plaintiff, Shanna M. Staats, filed a complaint against the Procter & Gamble Company, her former employer, alleging that it wrongfully denied her long term disability benefits under a policy of insurance in which she was an insured. On December 8, 2011, by stipulation of the parties, the caption of this case was amended to substitute as the defendant the Procter & Gamble Long Term Disability Allowance Plan ("the Plan").

The plaintiff's claim for wrongful denial of benefits arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. ("ERISA"). Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA provides that a civil action may be brought by a participant or beneficiary "to recover benefits due to him under the terms of [the] plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan."

29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). The parties agree that the plaintiff was a participant in the Plan (Complaint at ¶ 6 and answer thereto), and that she exhausted all administrative appeals before commencing this suit (Id. at ¶ 10).

The plaintiff complains that she became totally disabled due to significant medical ailments, but on May 27, 2011, the defendant unreasonably denied her benefits for total disability (Complaint at ¶¶ 7-9). As gleaned from the record, the plaintiff applied for disability benefits due to the diagnosis of arthritis, fibromyalgia, and depression beginning November 2, 2009, with a relapse on January 15, 2010 (Exhibit A to plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and expenses [Doc. 27-2]). In a letter dated January 13, 2011, the defendant's Corporate Disability Reviewing Board informed the plaintiff that having reviewed the available information, it found that she was partially disabled as defined in the Plan, for which she would receive payments as a partially disabled participant commencing January 4, 2011 (Exhibit 3 to Declaration of Diane K. Johnson [Doc. 28-2]).

By letter dated March 30, 2011, the plaintiff appealed the Corporate Reviewing Board's decision that she was only partially disabled (Exhibit 4 to Declaration of Diane K. Johnson). In a letter dated May 27, 2011, the Plan Trustees informed the plaintiff that her appeal was denied based upon their review of the available medical information, which indicated that she was partially, but not totally disabled as defined in the Plan (Declaration of Diane K. Johnson at ¶ 4).

Importantly, when the Plan Trustees denied the plaintiff's claim of total disability on May 27, 2011, they did not have all of the available medical records, and their decision was based on the Administrative File that was provided to them. Subsequently however, the Plan Trustees were informed that the plaintiff had additional medical records that she felt should be part of the Administrative File, whereupon the Trustees agreed to reconsider her claim (Id. at ¶ 8).

The record shows that following the denial of the plaintiff's appeal, Diane K. Johnson, the Chairperson of the Board of Trustees of the Plan, received a letter on June 2, 2011 from plaintiff's counsel, Francis Moore, requesting the complete administrative file (Id. at ¶ 5). By letter dated July 1, 2011, Ms. Johnson sent a copy of the complete administrative file and the Summary Plan Descriptions to attorney Moore (Id.). In her July 1, 2011 letter to Mr. Moore, Ms. Johnson informed him: "The administrative appeals for [the plaintiff] have been exhausted. The Trustees will not consider this claim further. [The plaintiff] has the right to bring a civil action under ERISA § 502(a)." (Exhibit 10 to Declaration of Diane K. Johnson).

The plaintiff commenced this action on October 17, 2011 by filing her complaint. In a letter dated November 22, 2011, Diane K. Johnson apprised the plaintiff: "[E]ffective January 2, 2012, the maximum lifetime total of 52 weeks of Partial Disability benefits paid to you will be exhausted and disability benefits will be terminated. The Trustees would like to take this opportunity to inform you that you have the right to appeal the Trustees' decision and to supply any additional information that may support your position. within 180 days from the receipt of this letter." (Exhibit 9 to Declaration of Diane K. Johnson). According to Ms. Johnson, as a matter of course, when the end of the 52-week period of partial disability payments is approaching, the Plan Trustees notify claimants that they may renew their appeals and submit additional information to permit the Plan Trustees to assess whether their disability is total (Declaration of Diane K. Johnson at ¶ 6).

On January 17, 2012, plaintiff's counsel informed defendant's counsel, John J. Myers, that there were numerous medical documents in this case that he wanted to add to the Administrative File (Declaration of John J. Myers [Doc. 28-1] at ¶ 2). Plaintiff's counsel then forwarded 278 pages of medical documents to defendant's counsel and requested that they be added to the Administrative File for the Trustees to consider; of these documents, 263 pages had never been submitted to the Plan previously (Id. at ¶ 4). On January 17, 2012, counsel for the parties exchanged emails concerning the new documents, and defendant's counsel stated: "If you believe any of these records would have made a difference in the outcome of the plan's decision, identify the record and, if the records appear to be significant, then I can ask whether my client would agree to a remand so that it can consider the material." (Id. at ¶ 2).

On January 31, 2012, plaintiff's counsel sent an email to defendant's counsel, suggesting that they agree to stay the case for 60 days to allow the additional documents to be considered, or have the case remanded to the Trustees for consideration of the new documents (Id. at ¶ 5). In a February 2, 2012 email, defendant's counsel replied that the proper procedure would be to remand the case to the Trustees, as a 60-day stay would probably not afford the Trustees enough time to complete their review (Id.).

On February 9, 2012, the plaintiff filed a "Motion to Stay Case or Alternatively Remand to Supplement Administrative Record" (Doc. 15). The Court granted the motion by Order dated February 14, 2012, and directed that "this case is stayed for sixty days so that the additional medical records may be forwarded to the plan administrator for consideration" (Doc. 16). In Orders dated April 10, 2012 (Doc. 21) and June 5, 2012 (Doc. 23), the Court granted the defendant's motions to extend the stay to allow the plan administrator to evaluate the plaintiff's claim in light of the additional medical records.

By letter dated June 18, 2012, Diane K. Johnson informed plaintiff's counsel that following their evaluation, "the Trustees have determined to approve [the plaintiff's] appeal as a totally disabled participant beginning January 4, 2011." (Exhibit A to plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees & expenses). The Trustees made their decision retroactive, so the plaintiff would still be eligible for 52 weeks of partial disability in the event her condition improves (Declaration of Diane K. Johnson at ΒΆ 9). ...

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.