Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Buss v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Co.

United States District Court, Tenth Circuit

January 14, 2014

BRYAN BUSS, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et. al, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Gerald L. Rushfelt U.S. Magistrate Judge

The Court has for consideration the Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (ECF 17). Plaintiff asks the Court to require Defendant United of Omaha Life Insurance Company (United) to produce documents in response to his Request for Production No. 11 and provide further responses to Interrogatories 6, 8, 9 and 13. As herein stated, the Court grants the motion in part and denies it in part.

As an employee of MedaSTAT USA LLC, Plaintiff participated in a disability insurance plan, insured and administered by Defendant United. The plan provides both short-term and long-term benefits in compliance with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Plaintiff became physically disabled. His employment terminated. The plan paid him short-term disability benefits for two years. It then paid him long-term benefits for another two years. United then concluded that Plaintiff was not unable to perform all the material duties of any gainful occupation. It decided, consequently, that he no longer qualified for long-term benefits under the plan. Accordingly, it terminated payment of the benefits. Plaintiff contends he does continue to qualify for disability benefits under the plan. By this action he seeks to recover them.

Defendant United serves dual roles under the plan. It both insures the plan and administers it. It thus has a conflict of interest. Such a conflict can lead to an abuse of discretion, if the insurer-administrator has unfairly favored its own interests to the detriment of the insured beneficiary. The Court must thus determine whether or not United abused its discretion in terminating and denying long-term disability benefits. As a general rule in ERISA cases the Court determines that issue merely by reviewing the administrative record of the plan administrator and without additional evidence. The parties then have no need for discovery as authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. But in an action like this, case law authorizes some limited discovery. The parties may pursue it, but only to assist in determining if the respondent, here United, abused its discretion in terminating and denying disability benefits.

Addressing the instant motion, the Court relies primarily on three cases which the parties have cited: Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 128 S.Ct. 2343, 171 L.Ed.2d 299 (2008); Murphy v. Deloitte & Touche Group Insurance Plan, 619 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2010); and Perkins v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company, No. 11-2557-KHV, 2012 WL 3834745 (D. Kan. Sept. 4, 2012). All three of these cases recognize both the general rule against discovery in ERISA cases and the exception to that rule when a conflict of interest exists by virtue of the dual role of a litigant who both insures and administers the claims.

The Court addresses the individual discovery requests as follows:

A. Request for Production 11.

Request for Production 11 seeks the performance evaluations and performance reviews for each employee of United who was involved in this claim. This request is virtually identical to the one for which production was denied in Perkins, supra. In that case Defendant had responded to the request by stating that it does not provide its employees with any incentive, remuneration, bonuses, awards, achievements, or other recognition based in whole or in part upon the denial or termination of claims. The Perkins decision finds that, “[b]ased on Hartford’s unequivocal discovery response concerning employee compensation, compelling further documents responsive to Production Request Nos. 11 and 12 would not reveal evidence of financial bias by the employees involved in the decision whether to grant or deny plaintiff’s disability claim.”[1] In answer to Interrogatory 5 in the instant case, United has provided virtually the same kind of information and explanation as Hartford did in Perkins.

Two differences exist, however, between the discovery in this case and its counterpart in Perkins. First, as Plaintiff emphasizes, the denial of benefits by Defendant United rested solely upon its in-house staff, without any review or contribution by an outside expert, medical or otherwise. The denial of benefits here, moreover, was in the face of a collateral finding of disability upon the claim of Plaintiff for Social Security disability benefits, which United itself had encouraged.

Secondly, Plaintiff here concedes that Request 11 should be narrowed to seek evaluations and reviews “only for the claims adjustors and in-house medical professionals involved in denying Plaintiff’s claim.” The Court agrees that the request should be thus narrowed.

The Court overrules the remaining objections of Defendant against Request 11. Notwithstanding its response as to how its employees are remunerated, that explanation does not provide an immunity against discovery of records that could suggest otherwise. In its briefing Defendant has indicated that the responsive documents have already been identified with Bates numbers 1666-1730. They thus appear to be 65 in number and should create no burden of consequence to production. Because they may contain personal information, relating to non-parties, the Court will order that their production and use be subject to the Protective Order (ECF 15) already entered in this case. Access and review of the documents by Plaintiff, furthermore, is to be restricted to his counsel of record, absent any further order to the contrary. With these restrictions the Court grants the motion to compel production of documents responsive to Request 11.

B. Interrogatory 6.

On September 17, 2013, Defendant served a supplemental response which answers Interrogatory 6. Plaintiff does not mention the response in her reply memorandum. The Court finds that Defendant has adequately provided the requested information. ...


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.