Pike v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 27 March 2019 |
Docket Number | Civil No. 4:17CV772 |
Citation | 368 F.Supp.3d 1018 |
Parties | Gina PIKE v. HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas |
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The above-entitled and numbered civil action was heretofore referred to United States Magistrate Judge Caroline M. Craven pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On January 31, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, finding for Plaintiff under recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a). Dkt. # 33. Defendant Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company ("Defendant") filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff Gina Pike ("Plaintiff") filed a response to the objections. Pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's March 1, 2019 Order, Defendant filed a reply and Plaintiff filed a surreply. The Court conducts a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge's recommended findings and conclusions.
This Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") action concerns the termination of Plaintiff's long term disability ("LTD") benefits pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(1)(B).1 Defendant issued an insurance policy, identified as Hartford policy number GLT-675193 ("the Policy"), effective January 1, 2005, describing benefits effective July 1, 2016 to Plaintiff's employer, Gambro, Inc. Plaintiff is insured for LTD benefits under the Policy. The Policy does not grant discretionary authority to the Plan Administrator or the Claims Administrator.
Defendant paid Plaintiff's claim for LTD benefits from April 24, 2008 through December 14, 2016, the period of time when Defendant determined Plaintiff met the definition of "disability" in the Policy. However, after later determining Plaintiff was unable to prove she continued to be "disabled" under the Policy, Defendant discontinued LTD benefits effective December 15, 2016. The issue is whether Plaintiff is entitled to receive LTD benefits after December 14, 2016 under the Policy. Plaintiff seeks the benefits she has been denied plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, recovery of attorney's fees and costs, clarification of her right to receive future benefits under the policy, and any other appropriate equitable relief. Dkt. # 1 at 3.
The parties stipulated a de novo review applies in this case.2 See Dkt. # 16.
The parties then filed cross motions for judgment on the record as well as the administrative record compiled by Defendant during the administration of Plaintiff's claim (the "Agreed Administrative Record" or "AR").
Both parties elected to proceed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52, which governs actions "tried on the facts without a jury." Rule 52 requires the Court "find the facts specifically and state its conclusions of law separately." FED. R. CIV. P. 52(a).
In the Fifth Circuit, "Rule 52(a) does not require that the district court set out [its] findings on all factual questions that arise in a case." Koenig v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. , No. 4:13-CV-0359, 2015 WL 6554347, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 29, 2015), aff'd sub nom. N. Cypress Med. Ctr. Operating Co., Ltd. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. , 898 F.3d 461 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Valley v. Rapides Parish Sch. Bd. , 118 F.3d 1047, 1054 (5th Cir.1997) (citing Golf City, Inc. v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., Inc. , 555 F.2d 426, 433 (5th Cir.1977) ) ). Nor does it demand "punctilious detail [or] slavish tracing of the claims issue by issue and witness by witness." Koenig , 2015 WL 6554347, at *3 (citations omitted). Rather, a court's "[f]indings [are sufficient to] satisfy Rule 52 if they afford the reviewing court a clear understanding of the factual basis for the trial court's decision." Id. (citations omitted).
According to courts outside the Fifth Circuit, using Rule 52 is effective in the ERISA context because courts may resolve factual disputes and issue legal findings without the parties resorting to cross motions for summary judgment. Tran v. Minnesota Life Ins. Co. , No. 17-CV-450, 2018 WL 1156326, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 5, 2018) ; see also Kearney , 175 F.3d at 1095 ( ). In a trial on the administrative record, the district judge reviews the evidence to determine "whether [the plaintiff] is disabled within the terms of the policy." Kearney , 175 F.3d at 1095. Further, "in a trial on the record, but not on summary judgment, the judge can evaluate the persuasiveness of conflicting testimony and decide which is more likely true." Id.
After hearing oral argument on the parties' cross motions, the Magistrate Judge issued a 60-page Report and Recommendation ("R & R") on January 31, 2019, finding for Plaintiff. Dkt. # 33. The Magistrate Judge's recommended findings and conclusions are based upon the Agreed Administrative Record. Plaintiff's lengthy medical history, as well as the facts behind Defendant's termination of LTD benefits, are set forth in detail in the Recommended Findings of Fact section of the R & R and are not duplicated herein.3 Id. at 4-32.
The Magistrate Judge stated Plaintiff, to obtain LTD benefits beyond December 14, 2016, must show by a preponderance of the evidence that she cannot perform one or more essential duties of any occupation for which she is qualified. Id. at 36. Based on the Agreed Administrative Record, the Magistrate Judge concluded Plaintiff had shown she could not perform all the essential duties of any occupation for which she is reasonably qualified. Id. at 37. The Magistrate Judge summarized the medical evidence she previously set forth in detail in the Recommended Findings of Fact section of the R & R. Dkt. # 33 at 37-39. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge stated as follows:
On February 20, 2011, Hartford management reviewed Plaintiff's claim and noted:
The Magistrate Judge considered the opinions of Plaintiff's treating...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Koch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
...to deny benefits "is not afforded deference or a presumption of correctness" when reviewed de novo. Pike v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co. , 368 F. Supp. 3d 1018, 1030 (E.D. Tex. 2019). Rather, the court must "independently weigh the facts and opinions in the administrative record to det......
-
Jacobs v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co.
...benefits claim, the “appropriate proceeding[ ] . . . is a bench trial and not the disposition of a summary judgment motion”); Pike, 368 F.Supp.3d at 1071 (“Using Rule 52 effective in the ERISA context because courts may resolve factual disputes and issue legal findings without the parties r......
-
Byerly v. Standard Ins. Co.
...relies on one case for its choice of law analysis, Byerly likewise relies upon on a single case: Pike v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 368 F. Supp. 3d 1018 (E.D. Tex. 2019). Specifically, Byerly relies on footnote 2 of the Court's decision in Pike. Footnote 2 stated:In Firestone Tire &......
-
Revels v. Standard Ins. Co.
...district court's essential task "is to determine whether the administrator made a correct decision." Pike v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co. , 368 F. Supp. 3d 1018, 1030 (E.D. Tex. 2019) (quoting Niles v. Am. Airlines, Inc. , 269 F. App'x 827, 832 (10th Cir. 2008) ). The court must "indep......