Fields v. Standard Insurance

Ninth Circuit

Fields v. Standard Insurance

59 F. App'x 945

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 19, 2003

DocketNo. 02-16689; D.C. No. CV-01-01648-DFL/DAD

StatusPublished

This text of 59 F. App'x 945 (Fields v. Standard Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fields v. Standard Insurance, 59 F. App'x 945 (9th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Linda Fields appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Standard Insurance Company (“Standard”), in her action alleging that Standard violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) by denying her claim for long-term disability benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U. S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s application of the abuse of discretion standard and its conclusion that a plan fiduciary has not abused its discretion. See Lang v. Long-Term Disability Plan of Sponsor Applied Remote Tech., 125 F.3d 794, 797 (9th Cir.1997).

Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court properly determined that defendant did not abuse its discretion by terminating Fields’ benefits, see Atwood v. Newmont Gold Co., Inc., 45 F.3d 1317, 1323-25 (9th Cir.1995), and we affirm.

Fields failed to establish that the administrator operated under a conflict of [947]*947interest because she did not provide “material, probative evidence” that the fiduciary’s self interest caused a breach of the administrator’s fiduciary obligation to the beneficiary. See Lang, 125 F.3d at 798.

Substantial evidence supports the administrator’s decision to reject the opinions of Fields’ treating physicians based on the contrary determinations of examining physicians and because the treating physicians’ opinions were “brief [and] eonclusory,” see Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir.2002), and lacked objective clinical findings, see Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144,1149 (9th Cir.2001).

We deny Fields’ outstanding motion for an extension of time to file additional citations.

Fields’ remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Linda Fields appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Standard Insurance Company (“Standard”), in her action alleging that Standard violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) by denying her claim for long-term disability benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U. S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s application of the abuse of discretion standard and its conclusion that a plan fiduciary has not abused its discretion. See Lang v. Long-Term Disability Plan of Sponsor Applied Remote Tech., 125 F.3d 794, 797 (9th Cir.1997).

Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court properly determined that defendant did not abuse its discretion by terminating Fields’ benefits, see Atwood v. Newmont Gold Co., Inc., 45 F.3d 1317, 1323-25 (9th Cir.1995), and we affirm.

Fields failed to establish that the administrator operated under a conflict of [947]*947interest because she did not provide “material, probative evidence” that the fiduciary’s self interest caused a breach of the administrator’s fiduciary obligation to the beneficiary. See Lang, 125 F.3d at 798.

Substantial evidence supports the administrator’s decision to reject the opinions of Fields’ treating physicians based on the contrary determinations of examining physicians and because the treating physicians’ opinions were “brief [and] eonclusory,” see Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir.2002), and lacked objective clinical findings, see Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144,1149 (9th Cir.2001).

We deny Fields’ outstanding motion for an extension of time to file additional citations.

Fields’ remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 F. App'x 945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fields-v-standard-insurance-ca9-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack