Fleming v. Prudential Insurance Company of America

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 31, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01328
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7 WILLIAM L. FLEMING, 8 Plaintiff, 9 v. C19-1328 TSZ 10 PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE MINUTE ORDER COMPANY OF AMERICA, 11 Defendant. 12

13 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge: 14 (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Limited Discovery, docket no. 20, is DENIED. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 15 1974 (“ERISA”), to challenge Defendant’s denial of coverage under the terms of an accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D) policy. The parties agree that the Court’s 16 review of Defendant’s denial is de novo. Under de novo review, the Court evaluates whether the plan administrator correctly or incorrectly denied benefits, without regard to 17 whether the administrator operated under a conflict of interest. Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 2006). “A district court may admit extrinsic 18 evidence in cases involving . . . claims that require consideration of complex medical questions or issues regarding the credibility of medical experts.” Kollar v. Sun Life 19 Assurance Co. of Canada, 2019 WL 6839335, at *1-2 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 16, 2019) (quoting Opeta v. Nw. Airlines Pension Plan for Contract Emps., 484 F.3d 1211, 1217 20 (9th Cir. 2007)). Plaintiff seeks depositions of the medical experts who provided declarations in support of Defendant’s denial of AD&D coverage. However, this case 21 does not require the consideration of complex medical questions or the credibility of medical experts, and Plaintiff has not otherwise shown that additional deposition 22 1 testimony is necessary to understand or clarify the medical examiners’ conclusions. See Opeta, 484 F.3d at 1217 (additional discovery not necessary to conduct de novo review in 2 ERISA case where such evidence would not clarify the administrative record and no ambiguity regarding medical examiner’s conclusion existed). The Court therefore denies 3 Plaintiff’s Motion for Limited Discovery. 4 (2) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of record. 5 Dated this 31st day of January, 2020. 6 William M. McCool 7 Clerk 8 s/Karen Dews Deputy Clerk 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22