Ines Ibrahim v. Bayer Corp Disability Plan , 584 F. App'x 743 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 05 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
INES IBRAHIM, No. 12-56689
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-09150-SJO-
MAN
v.
BAYER CORPORATION DISABILITY MEMORANDUM*
PLAN, an ERISA plan,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 28, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, RAWLINSON, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The facts and procedural posture of this case are known to the parties, and
we do not repeat them here. Appellant Ines Ibrahim challenges the district court’s
judgment upholding the denial of her short-term disability benefits by Appellee
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Bayer Corporation Disability Plan (“Plan”). We affirm the decision of the district
court.
The Plan explicitly gives the administrator the discretion to determine
whether a beneficiary is disabled and to interpret the terms of the Plan. When the
terms of a disability plan confer such discretion on a plan administrator, we review
a decision by the administrator to deny benefits for an abuse of discretion. Abatie
v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 965 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc).
We must account, however, for the fact that the same entity—i.e.,
Bayer—both administers and funds the Plan. A plan administrator facing this kind
of structural conflict of interest may have an improper incentive to deny claims.
Our abuse of discretion review in this case should therefore be “informed by the
nature, extent, and effect on the decision-making process of any conflict of interest
that may appear in the record.” Id. at 967. Any procedural irregularities that
occurred during the handling of Ibrahim’s claim are likewise “a matter to be
weighed in deciding whether [the] administrator’s decision was an abuse of
discretion.” Id. at 972.
After considering all of the relevant factors, we conclude that the Plan
administrator did not abuse its discretion in denying Ibrahim short-term disability
benefits after April 27, 2008. As the district court held, there was sufficient
2
evidence in the record to allow the administrator to conclude that, as of that date,
Ibrahim was capable of performing her job duties and thus was not disabled under
the terms of the Plan. The administrator had received an opinion to that effect
from a consulting physician, Dr. Bill Hennessey, who examined Ibrahim’s job
description and concluded that she was capable of doing her job. The
administrator was entitled to credit Dr. Hennessey’s opinion rather than the
conclusory and belated opinion of Dr. Yip, Ibrahim’s treating physician.
Any procedural errors committed by the Plan administrator do not alter our
conclusion. Although the administrator could have done a better job
communicating to Ibrahim what kind of evidence was requested of her and the
exact reasons for its denial of benefits, the evidence in the record suggests that all
available information relevant to Ibrahim’s claim was before the administrator
when it made its final decision or, at the very least, before the district court below.
The administrator did not, moreover, fail to consider any of the relevant evidence
that Ibrahim provided.
Similarly, Bayer’s structural conflict of interest does not “appear[]
improperly to have influenced [the] plan administrator’s decision.” Montour v.
Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 588 F.3d 623, 631 (9th Cir. 2009). The presence of
that conflict thus casts little, if any, doubt on the decision of the administrator.
3
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED.
4