Mary Linich v. Broadspire Services, Inc. , 387 F. App'x 712 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARY D. LINICH, No. 09-15830
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:05-cv-02983-MHM
v.
MEMORANDUM *
BROADSPIRE SERVICES, INC.;
TOWERS PERRIN LONG-TERM
DISABILITY PLAN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Mary H. Murguia, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 14, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and MOODY, Judge.**
In this appeal governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA), Appellant Mary Linich (Linich) challenges the district court’s grant
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable James Maxwell Moody, United States District Judge
for the Eastern District of Arkansas, sitting by designation.
of summary judgment in favor of Appellee Broadspire Services, Inc. (Broadspire),
the claims manager for Linich’s employer, Towers Perrin, after denial of Linich’s
claim for long-term disability (LTD) benefits.
1. The district court properly applied the abuse of discretion standard.
The Plan did not limit Towers Perrin’s power to delegate fiduciary responsibilities
to Broadspire pursuant to a service agreement, which provided Broadspire with the
discretionary authority to interpret the Plan’s terms and determine LTD benefits.
See Madden v. ITT Long Term Disability Plan for Salaried Employees, 914 F.2d
1279, 1283-85 (9th Cir. 1990) (recognizing delegation through a Claims
Administration Agreement).
2. The district court properly rejected Linich’s speculative evidence of a
conflict of interest. See LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127, 1136 (9th
Cir. 2009) (“While we must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
non-moving party, we need not draw inferences that are based solely on
speculation.”) (citations omitted).
3. Although Broadspire’s initial denials of continued LTD benefits was
2
arbitrary and an abuse of discretion because it failed to consider all available
medical documents, Broadspire’s review of Linich’s two appeals comported with
ERISA’s requirements. Even though Broadspire did not explicitly mention
Linich’s award of social security benefits, Broadspire fully and fairly reviewed the
complete medical record of Linich’s cognitive and physical conditions, and
specifically rejected the opinions of Linich’s treating physicians. Broadspire’s
decision also comported with the Plan’s terms, as it delineated its reasons for
denying Linich’s claim. See Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955,
972 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (“When an administrator can show that it has
engaged in an ongoing, good faith exchange of information between the
administrator and the claimant, the court should give the administrator’s decision
broad deference notwithstanding a minor irregularity.”) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted); see also Montour v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.,
588 F.3d 623, 629 (9th Cir. 2009), as amended (“In the absence of a conflict,
judicial review of a plan administrator’s benefits determination involves a
straightforward application of the abuse of discretion standard. In these
circumstances, the plan administrator’s decision can be upheld if it is grounded on
any reasonable basis.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis
in the original).
3
4. Because Broadspire’s initial denial of benefits was arbitrary and an
abuse of discretion, see Pannebecker v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, 542
F.3d 1213, 1221 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that an administrator abuses its discretion
when its decision is “substantively arbitrary or capricious, or . . . it fail[s] to
comply with required procedures”), the district court should determine an award of
partial benefits for the period between Broadspire’s arbitrary denials of continued
LTD benefits and its proper resolution of Linich’s appeals. See id. (“[I]f an
administrator terminates continuing benefits as a result of arbitrary and capricious
conduct, the claimant should continue receiving benefits until the administrator
properly applies the plan’s provisions.”) (citation omitted).
AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED in part for an award of partial
benefits.
4