Wall v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 27 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | Civ. Action 20-2075 (EGS/GMH) |
| Parties | LUCAS WALL, Plaintiff, v. RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE CO., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Plaintiff Lucas Wall (“Mr. Wall”), proceeding pro se, brings this lawsuit against Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (“Reliance”) and Dr. Tajuddin Jiva, M.D. (“Dr. Jiva”) (collectively “Defendants”), seeking damages following the termination of his disability benefits. Second Am. Compl ECF No. 32;[1]Wall v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., No. CV 20-2075 (EGS), 2021 WL 2209405, at *12 (D.D.C. June 1, 2021). As relevant here, Mr. Wall alleges one count of medical malpractice against Dr. Jiva. See Wall, 2021 WL 2209405, at *12.
On February 1, 2022, the Court referred this case to a magistrate judge for full case management, see Minute Order (Feb. 1, 2022); and the case was randomly assigned to Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey, see Docket Civ. Action No. 20-2075. Dr. Jiva thereafter moved for judgment on the pleadings to dismiss the count against him. See Def., Tajuddin Jiva, M.D.'s, Mot. J. Pleadings Dismiss Count VII of Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 73. On July 5, 2022, Magistrate Judge Harvey issued a Report and Recommendation ( ) recommending that the Court grant Dr. Jiva's motion. See R. & R., ECF No. 83.
Pending before the Court are Mr. Wall's Objections to the R. & R., see Pl.'s Objs. Magistrate's R. & R. on Def. Tajuddin Jiva's Mot. J. Pleadings (“Pl.'s Objs.”), ECF No. 84; and Mr. Wall's Motion to Vacate Part of the Court's June 1, 2021 Order, see Pl.'s Mot. Vacate Part of Ct.'s June 1, 2021, Order & Reinstate Counts II & IV of Second Am. Compl. Against Def. Tajuddin Jiva (“Pl.'s Mot.”), ECF No. 85. Upon careful consideration of the R. & R., the objections, and opposition thereto; the motion and opposition thereto; the applicable law; and the entire record herein, the Court hereby ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Harvey's R. & R., see ECF No. 83; GRANTS Dr. Jiva's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, see ECF No. 73; and DENIES Mr. Wall's Motion to Vacate Part of the Court's June 1, 2021 Order, see ECF No. 85.
The background of this litigation was set forth in the Court's prior opinion and will not be repeated here. See Wall, 2021 WL 2209405, at *1. In short, Mr. Wall alleges that Reliance underwrites and administers his long-term disability benefits through a policy for the employees of the American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials, by whom he was employed from June 2008 until March 2012. See Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 32 ¶¶ 1-2. In March 2012, Mr. Wall became “Totally Disabled” due to Non-24-Hour Sleep/Wake Disorder. Id. ¶ 1. He received long-term disability benefits until January 29, 2020, when Reliance notified him that it was terminating his benefits. Id. ¶ 11.
On April 30, 2020, Mr. Wall appealed Reliance's termination decision. Id. ¶ 15. He alleges that Reliance then commissioned a “peer review” by Dr. Jiva and that he submitted a rebuttal to Dr. Jiva's report. Id. ¶¶ 17-18. Reliance denied his appeal on July 29, 2020. Id. ¶ 20. Thereafter, Reliance had Mr. Wall undergo an Independent Medical Examination, after which the termination of his benefits was reversed. Id. ¶¶ 22-23.
On April 5, 2022, Dr. Jiva moved for judgment on the pleadings. See Def., Tajuddin Jiva, M.D.'s, Mot. J. Pleadings Dismiss Count VII of Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 73. Mr. Wall filed a brief in opposition on April 24, 2022, see Pl.'s Opp'n Def. Tajuddin Jiva's Mot. J. Pleadings, ECF No. 75; and Dr. Jiva filed his reply brief on May 2, 2022, see Def. Tajuddin Jiva, M.D.'s Reply Pl.'s Opp'n Def.'s Mot. J. Pleadings Dismiss Count VII, Pl.'s Medical Malpractice Claim, from Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 77. On July 5, 2022, Magistrate Judge Harvey issued his R. & R. recommending that the Court grant Dr. Jiva's motion. See R. & R., ECF No. 83.
On July 19, 2022, Mr. Wall submitted Objections to the R. & R. See Pl.'s Objs., ECF No. 84. Dr. Jiva filed an opposition brief on August 2, 2022. See Def., Tajuddin Jiva, M.D.'s, Resp. Pl.'s Objs. Magistrate Judge's R. & R. (#83) on Def.'s Mot. J. Pleadings (“Def.'s Opp'n”), ECF No. 87.
Mr. Wall also filed a Motion to Vacate Part of the Court's June 1, 2021 Order on July 20, 2022. See Pl.'s Mot., ECF No. 85. Dr. Jiva filed his opposition on August 2, 2022. See Def., Tajuddin Jiva, M.D.'s, Opp'n Pl.'s Mot. (#85) Vacate Part of Ct.'s June 1, 2021 Order (#26) (“Def.'s Opp'n”), ECF No. 86.
The objections and the motion are now ripe and ready for adjudication.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), a party may file specific written objections once a magistrate judge has entered a recommended disposition. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(1)-(2). A district court “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (). A district court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). “If, however, the party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments, the Court reviews the [R. & R.] only for clear error.” Houlahan v. Brown, 979 F.Supp.2d 86, 88 (D.D.C. 2013) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Under the clearly erroneous standard, the magistrate judge's decision is entitled to great deference” and “is clearly erroneous only if on the entire evidence the court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Buie v. Dist. of Columbia, No. CV 16-1920 (CKK), 2019 WL 4345712, at *3 (D.D.C. Sept. 12, 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Graham v. Mukasey, 608 F.Supp.2d 50, 52 (D.D.C. 2009)).
Objections must “specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made and the basis for the objection.” LCvR 72.3(b). “[O]bjections which merely rehash an argument presented and considered by the magistrate judge are not ‘properly objected to' and are therefore not entitled to de novo review.” Shurtleff v. EPA, 991 F.Supp.2d 1, 8 (D.D.C. 2013) (quoting Morgan v. Astrue, No. 08-2133, 2009 WL 3541001, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 30, 2009)). The Court reviews Mr. Wall's objections de novo.
Under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a]fter the pleadings are closed-but early enough not to delay trial-a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). A motion pursuant to Rule 12(c) is appropriately granted when, at the close of the pleadings, “no material issue of fact remains to be solved, and [the movant] is clearly entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Montanans for Multiple Use v. Barbouletos, 542 F.Supp.2d 9, 13 (D.D.C. 2008) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
When evaluating a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), courts employ the same standard that governs a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Jung v. Ass'n of Am. Med. Colls., 339 F.Supp.2d 26, 35-36 (D.D.C. 2004). A court must treat the factual allegations in the complaint as true, “even if doubtful in fact,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); but it need not accept as true legal conclusions set forth in a complaint, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Accordingly, a court must accept the plaintiff's well-pleaded factual allegations to the extent that “they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief,” id. at 679; and “may thus only grant judgment on the pleadings if it appears, even accepting as true all inferences from the complaint's factual allegations, that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts entitling him to relief,” Lans v. Adduci Mastriani & Schaumberg LLP, 786 F.Supp.2d 240, 265 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing In re United Mine Workers of Am. Emp. Benefit Plans Litig., 854 F.Supp. 914, 915 (D.D.C. 1994)) .
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) governs Mr. Wall's Motion to Vacate Part of the Court's June 1, 2021 Order, ECF No. 85, because the Court has not entered a final judgment. Shapiro v. U.S. Dep't of Just., No. CV 13-555 (RDM), 2016 WL 3023980, at *2 (). Under Rule 54(b), “the Court [may] revisit any order that adjudicates ‘fewer than all the claims or rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties . . . at any time before' the entry of final judgment.” Id. (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b)).
The standard for determining whether or not to grant a Rule 54(b) motion is the “as justice requires” standard. Jud. Watch v. Dep't of Army, 466 F.Supp.2d 112 123 (D.D.C. 2006). Under this flexible standard, the Court considers “whether the court patently misunderstood the parties, made a decision beyond the adversarial issues presented, made an error in failing to consider controlling decisions or data, or whether a controlling or significant change in the law has occurred.” In Def. of Animals v. Nat'l Insts. of Health, 543 F.Supp.2d 70, 75 (D.D.C. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Montgomery v. Internal Revenue Serv., 356 F.Supp.3d 74, 79 (D.D.C. 2019), aff'd, 40 F.4th 702 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial