Raymond Pollock v. Northrop Grumman Health Plan

Ninth Circuit

Raymond Pollock v. Northrop Grumman Health Plan

537 F. App'x 689

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 7, 2013

Docket11-56764

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 537 F. App'x 689 (Raymond Pollock v. Northrop Grumman Health Plan) 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

Raymond Pollock v. Northrop Grumman Health Plan, 537 F. App'x 689 (9th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Raymond Pollok appeals from the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law following a bench trial in his claim for long-term disability benefits under an insurance policy governed by ERISA. We have jurisdiction pursuant to *690 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the district court.

The district court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous. See Pannebecker v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, 542 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir.2008), It was not “illogical, implausible, or without support ... in the record” for the district court to find that: (1) the Northrop Grumman Health Plan (“the Plan”) was in effect and available to Pollok when he became disabled; (2) there was only one “Benefits Online” website containing the Summary Plan Description (“SPD”); (3) the SPD vested discretionary authority in Unum as the Plan’s administrator; and (4) the SPD provided that benefits payments could be offset against certain benefits received from other sources. See United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

Nor were the district court’s legal conclusions in error. See Pannebecker, 542 F.3d at 1217. The Plan vested discretionary authority in the Plan administrator, and therefore it was proper for the district court to review the benefits determination for abuse of discretion. See Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 969 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc). The district court also properly concluded that Pollok’s benefits payments could be offset against certain benefits received from other sources. The district court did not improperly place the burden on Pollok to show that the Plan lacked offset provisions. See Zavora v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 145 F.3d 1118, 1120 & n. 2 (9th Cir.1998) (explaining that the burden of establishing the existence and terms of an ERISA plan is on the insurer).

AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM *

Raymond Pollok appeals from the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law following a bench trial in his claim for long-term disability benefits under an insurance policy governed by ERISA. We have jurisdiction pursuant to *690 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the district court.

The district court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous. See Pannebecker v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, 542 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir.2008), It was not “illogical, implausible, or without support ... in the record” for the district court to find that: (1) the Northrop Grumman Health Plan (“the Plan”) was in effect and available to Pollok when he became disabled; (2) there was only one “Benefits Online” website containing the Summary Plan Description (“SPD”); (3) the SPD vested discretionary authority in Unum as the Plan’s administrator; and (4) the SPD provided that benefits payments could be offset against certain benefits received from other sources. See United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

Nor were the district court’s legal conclusions in error. See Pannebecker, 542 F.3d at 1217. The Plan vested discretionary authority in the Plan administrator, and therefore it was proper for the district court to review the benefits determination for abuse of discretion. See Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 969 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc). The district court also properly concluded that Pollok’s benefits payments could be offset against certain benefits received from other sources. The district court did not improperly place the burden on Pollok to show that the Plan lacked offset provisions. See Zavora v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 145 F.3d 1118, 1120 & n. 2 (9th Cir.1998) (explaining that the burden of establishing the existence and terms of an ERISA plan is on the insurer).

AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

537 F. App'x 689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raymond-pollock-v-northrop-grumman-health-plan-ca9-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack