NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 15 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JANNET SOLIS; MICHAEL ORTEGA, No. 24-2412 D.C. No. Plaintiffs - Appellants, 2:23-cv-04024-SVW-PD
v. MEMORANDUM*
T-MOBILE US, INC.; UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2025** Pasadena, California
Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and R. NELSON and SUNG, Circuit Judges.
The central questions in this ERISA appeal are whether UnitedHealthcare
Insurance Company (“United”) improperly denied Plaintiffs’ medical claims for
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). hiatal hernia repairs that Medical Providers 1 conducted during the same surgical
session as gastric sleeve procedures and whether United’s explanations for the
denials of the claims gave Plaintiffs sufficient notice under the statute.2 An ERISA
plan administrator denying a claim has a duty to explain “specific reasons for such
denial,” 29 U.S.C. § 1133(1), and to cite “specific plan provisions” on which the
denial is based, 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503–1(g)(i), so that claimants may perfect their
claims. Harlick v. Blue Shield of California, 686 F.3d 699, 719 (9th Cir. 2012). The
district court here found United’s explanations deficient under ERISA but
nonetheless determined that United did not abuse its discretion in denying the claims
and entered judgment for Defendants. Although the district court identified the
correct standard of review, it committed legal error by not allowing for augmentation
of the administrative record despite finding United’s initial claims denial
explanations deficient under ERISA. Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d
955, 973–74 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc).
“We review de novo a district court’s choice and application of the standard
of review to decisions by fiduciaries in ERISA cases.” Id. at 962. “We review for
1 The Medical Providers, Dr. Feizbakhsh and Dr. Rim of Advanced Weight Loss Surgical Associates, were parties to the district court litigation but did not join Plaintiffs on appeal. 2 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the background of this case and only discuss the facts vital for the explanation of our disposition.
2 24-2412 clear error the underlying findings of fact.” Id. We review de novo the district
court’s interpretation of ERISA. Wit v. United Behavioral Health, 79 F.4th 1068,
1083 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted).
1. The district court correctly found that it had to review United’s claims denial
for abuse of discretion because United’s plan agreement grants United full
discretionary authority to adjudicate claims. Abatie, 458 F.3d at 963. The district
court also correctly identified the need to temper the abuse of discretion standard
“commensurate with the” procedural irregularities it identified in United’s claim
administration process. Id. at 959. “A procedural irregularity, like a conflict of
interest, is a matter to be weighted in deciding whether an administrator’s decision
was an abuse of discretion.” Id. at 972 (citation omitted). The district court
determined post-trial that “[e]ven after voluminous briefing, United [] failed to
identify a particular provision of its reimbursement policy which incorporate[d]
[the] particular guideline from the NCCI [(National Correct Coding Initiative)]
Manual” that United argued, for the first time during litigation, provided the basis
for its initial denial of Plaintiffs’ hiatal hernia repair reimbursement claims. Solis
v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:23-CV-04024-SVW-PD, 2024 WL 1117897, at *14
(C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2024). This explanatory deficiency, the district court correctly
concluded, amounted to a procedural irregularity. Id. at *13–15 (citing Booton v.
Lockheed Medical Benefit Plan, 110 F.3d 1461, 1463 (9th Cir. 1997)).
3 24-2412 A review of the record underscores the district court’s conclusion that
United’s claims denial was insufficient under ERISA. United did not cite any
specific plan provisions nor provide a specific explanation to allow Plaintiffs to
adequately perfect their claims. Harlick, 686 F.3d at 719–20.3 Through counsel
during litigation, United advanced a variety of additional explanations in support of
its administrative review decision, including the Medical Providers’ use of the
figure-of-eight suture, the hernia repairs occurring at the same incision site as the
gastric sleeve procedures, and the two procedures occurring during the same surgical
session. Although these rationales may all find some support in the NCCI Manual,
Defendants notably did not present them to Plaintiffs during the administrative
review process. “[A] court will not allow an ERISA plan administrator to assert a
reason for denial of benefits that it had not given during the administrative process.”
Harlick, 686 F.3d at 719–20.
3 United’s initial denial only stated:
Not supported. The submitted medical records indicate that a gastric sleeve procedure was performed which may be better represented with a more appropriate Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code. In addition, this procedure code 43281 may be considered included in the appropriately billed code and cannot be separately reimbursed. Therefore, the validity and accuracy of the claim cannot be verified.
United’s administrative appeal denial repeated this exact language and only included one additional sentence, which stated: “Rationale: Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) Code 43281 remains not supported.”
4 24-2412 Defendants argue that Plaintiffs demonstrated an understanding of United’s
denial justifications through the documents Medical Providers submitted during the
administrative appeal. But despite Plaintiffs’ attempts to respond to United’s claims
denials in their administrative appeals, Plaintiffs could not address specific concerns
because United’s denials were deficient. United’s denials were conclusory, twice
using non-committal phrases such as “may be” without any further explanation.
United’s explanatory deficiencies during the administrative process failed to provide
meaningful engagement and denied Plaintiffs the opportunity to address the specific
bases for United’s denials. This violated ERISA’s requirements. Id. By contrast,
if, for example, United’s denial of the appeal had specified that the administrator
determined the hernia repair was incidental to the gastric sleeve procedure because
there was only a single incision point, then Plaintiffs could have responded by
providing additional evidence of different incision points. But United, by failing to
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 15 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JANNET SOLIS; MICHAEL ORTEGA, No. 24-2412 D.C. No. Plaintiffs - Appellants, 2:23-cv-04024-SVW-PD
v. MEMORANDUM*
T-MOBILE US, INC.; UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2025** Pasadena, California
Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and R. NELSON and SUNG, Circuit Judges.
The central questions in this ERISA appeal are whether UnitedHealthcare
Insurance Company (“United”) improperly denied Plaintiffs’ medical claims for
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). hiatal hernia repairs that Medical Providers 1 conducted during the same surgical
session as gastric sleeve procedures and whether United’s explanations for the
denials of the claims gave Plaintiffs sufficient notice under the statute.2 An ERISA
plan administrator denying a claim has a duty to explain “specific reasons for such
denial,” 29 U.S.C. § 1133(1), and to cite “specific plan provisions” on which the
denial is based, 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503–1(g)(i), so that claimants may perfect their
claims. Harlick v. Blue Shield of California, 686 F.3d 699, 719 (9th Cir. 2012). The
district court here found United’s explanations deficient under ERISA but
nonetheless determined that United did not abuse its discretion in denying the claims
and entered judgment for Defendants. Although the district court identified the
correct standard of review, it committed legal error by not allowing for augmentation
of the administrative record despite finding United’s initial claims denial
explanations deficient under ERISA. Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d
955, 973–74 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc).
“We review de novo a district court’s choice and application of the standard
of review to decisions by fiduciaries in ERISA cases.” Id. at 962. “We review for
1 The Medical Providers, Dr. Feizbakhsh and Dr. Rim of Advanced Weight Loss Surgical Associates, were parties to the district court litigation but did not join Plaintiffs on appeal. 2 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the background of this case and only discuss the facts vital for the explanation of our disposition.
2 24-2412 clear error the underlying findings of fact.” Id. We review de novo the district
court’s interpretation of ERISA. Wit v. United Behavioral Health, 79 F.4th 1068,
1083 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted).
1. The district court correctly found that it had to review United’s claims denial
for abuse of discretion because United’s plan agreement grants United full
discretionary authority to adjudicate claims. Abatie, 458 F.3d at 963. The district
court also correctly identified the need to temper the abuse of discretion standard
“commensurate with the” procedural irregularities it identified in United’s claim
administration process. Id. at 959. “A procedural irregularity, like a conflict of
interest, is a matter to be weighted in deciding whether an administrator’s decision
was an abuse of discretion.” Id. at 972 (citation omitted). The district court
determined post-trial that “[e]ven after voluminous briefing, United [] failed to
identify a particular provision of its reimbursement policy which incorporate[d]
[the] particular guideline from the NCCI [(National Correct Coding Initiative)]
Manual” that United argued, for the first time during litigation, provided the basis
for its initial denial of Plaintiffs’ hiatal hernia repair reimbursement claims. Solis
v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:23-CV-04024-SVW-PD, 2024 WL 1117897, at *14
(C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2024). This explanatory deficiency, the district court correctly
concluded, amounted to a procedural irregularity. Id. at *13–15 (citing Booton v.
Lockheed Medical Benefit Plan, 110 F.3d 1461, 1463 (9th Cir. 1997)).
3 24-2412 A review of the record underscores the district court’s conclusion that
United’s claims denial was insufficient under ERISA. United did not cite any
specific plan provisions nor provide a specific explanation to allow Plaintiffs to
adequately perfect their claims. Harlick, 686 F.3d at 719–20.3 Through counsel
during litigation, United advanced a variety of additional explanations in support of
its administrative review decision, including the Medical Providers’ use of the
figure-of-eight suture, the hernia repairs occurring at the same incision site as the
gastric sleeve procedures, and the two procedures occurring during the same surgical
session. Although these rationales may all find some support in the NCCI Manual,
Defendants notably did not present them to Plaintiffs during the administrative
review process. “[A] court will not allow an ERISA plan administrator to assert a
reason for denial of benefits that it had not given during the administrative process.”
Harlick, 686 F.3d at 719–20.
3 United’s initial denial only stated:
Not supported. The submitted medical records indicate that a gastric sleeve procedure was performed which may be better represented with a more appropriate Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code. In addition, this procedure code 43281 may be considered included in the appropriately billed code and cannot be separately reimbursed. Therefore, the validity and accuracy of the claim cannot be verified.
United’s administrative appeal denial repeated this exact language and only included one additional sentence, which stated: “Rationale: Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) Code 43281 remains not supported.”
4 24-2412 Defendants argue that Plaintiffs demonstrated an understanding of United’s
denial justifications through the documents Medical Providers submitted during the
administrative appeal. But despite Plaintiffs’ attempts to respond to United’s claims
denials in their administrative appeals, Plaintiffs could not address specific concerns
because United’s denials were deficient. United’s denials were conclusory, twice
using non-committal phrases such as “may be” without any further explanation.
United’s explanatory deficiencies during the administrative process failed to provide
meaningful engagement and denied Plaintiffs the opportunity to address the specific
bases for United’s denials. This violated ERISA’s requirements. Id. By contrast,
if, for example, United’s denial of the appeal had specified that the administrator
determined the hernia repair was incidental to the gastric sleeve procedure because
there was only a single incision point, then Plaintiffs could have responded by
providing additional evidence of different incision points. But United, by failing to
provide such specificity, denied claimants the opportunity to adequately respond
during the administrative claims process. Id.
2. Upon identifying United’s procedural irregularities, the district court
erroneously proceeded to apply a three-factor test for determining when an ERISA
plan administrator abuses its discretion. This three-factor test has been called into
question by Abatie’s “more comprehensive approach to ERISA cases.” 458 F.3d at
959. “[W]hen an administrator has engaged in a procedural irregularity that has
5 24-2412 affected the administrative review, the district court should reconsider the denial of
benefits after the plan participant has been given the opportunity to submit additional
evidence.” Id. at 973 (cleaned up). The district court erroneously concluded that
United’s procedural violations amounted to harmless error that did not affect the
administrative review.
The district court found that United had engaged in procedural irregularities
and that its explanations “f[e]ll short” but denied Plaintiffs’ request to submit
supplemental evidence after the bench trial. 4 The declarations contained direct
responses to United’s claims denial explanations advanced during litigation. These
declarations provided the sort of extra-record material Abatie holds the district court
should have considered to remedy procedural irregularities and “in essence, recreate
what the administrative record would have been had [United’s] procedure been
correct.” 458 F.3d at 973. The district court asked during the conclusion of the
bench trial for post-trial briefing in part because United’s explanations for denial
remained unclear. The fact that United’s basis for denial was still not clear to the
district court at the end of the bench trial further supports the conclusion that
Plaintiffs had not received adequate notice of United’s denial explanations.
3. Plaintiffs’ request for an award of judgment is not supported by the record
4 Plaintiffs also sought to supplement the record pre-trial through a limited deposition, which was denied by the magistrate judge.
6 24-2412 considered by the district court. See Demer v. IBM Corp. LTD Plan, 835 F.3d 893,
907 (9th Cir. 2016). And after the record augmentation required by Abatie, it is
possible that United may produce sufficient evidence in response to Plaintiffs’
evidence to show that the denials were not an abuse of discretion. But further
factfinding is necessary before the district court can decide. Abatie, 458 F.3d at 974.
The district court, in its discretion on remand, can retry the case after proper
augmentation of the administrative record5, id., or alternatively, the district court
may remand the case back to the United plan administrator to reevaluate the merits
of Plaintiffs’ claims, Demer, 835 F.3d at 907-8.
VACATED and REMANDED.
5 While the district court’s consideration of Plaintiffs’ two post-trial supplemental declarations may constitute sufficient augmentation of the administrative record to comply with Abatie, we leave to the sound discretion of the district court how to conduct the proper augmentation of the administrative record and the factfinding procedures necessary to accomplish that exercise.
7 24-2412