Takata v. Hartford Comprehensive Employee Benefit Service Co.

Ninth Circuit

Takata v. Hartford Comprehensive Employee Benefit Service Co.

572 F. App'x 497

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 8, 2014

Docket12-35927

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 572 F. App'x 497 (Takata v. Hartford Comprehensive Employee Benefit Service Co.) 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

Takata v. Hartford Comprehensive Employee Benefit Service Co., 572 F. App'x 497 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Debbie Takata appeals from the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants in her action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

*498 Hartford terminated Takata’s disability-benefits after it recorded surveillance videos showing Takata engaging in activities, such as teaching martial arts classes, that were inconsistent with her statements and reported symptoms.

1. Takata did not produce any evidence to rebut defendants’ declarations that Hartford (not Battelle) administered her plan, even though she had been given the opportunity to conduct discovery on the matter. Therefore, there was no conflict of interest and we accordingly apply the deferential abuse of discretion standard of review to Hartford’s termination decision.

2. Given the video, Hartford’s failure to provide detailed reasons distinguishing its benefits decision from that of the Social Security Administration does not compel a conclusion that Hartford abused its discretion. See, e.g., Montour v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 588 F.3d 623, 635 (9th Cir.2009).

3. Hartford’s initial denial letter implicitly notified Takata that a physician’s recitation of her reported symptoms would not be sufficient for Hartford to reverse its initial termination of benefits. Takata, moreover, to this day has still not presented objective medical evidence demonstrating the extent of her disability, even though she without question had the opportunity to do so in this appeal. See Saffon v. Wells Fargo & Co. Long Term Disability Plan, 522 F.3d 863, 872 (9th Cir.2008). Therefore, Hartford did not violate 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1(g)(l)(iii).

AFFIRMED.

*

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

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

MEMORANDUM *

Debbie Takata appeals from the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants in her action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

*498 Hartford terminated Takata’s disability-benefits after it recorded surveillance videos showing Takata engaging in activities, such as teaching martial arts classes, that were inconsistent with her statements and reported symptoms.

1. Takata did not produce any evidence to rebut defendants’ declarations that Hartford (not Battelle) administered her plan, even though she had been given the opportunity to conduct discovery on the matter. Therefore, there was no conflict of interest and we accordingly apply the deferential abuse of discretion standard of review to Hartford’s termination decision.

2. Given the video, Hartford’s failure to provide detailed reasons distinguishing its benefits decision from that of the Social Security Administration does not compel a conclusion that Hartford abused its discretion. See, e.g., Montour v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 588 F.3d 623, 635 (9th Cir.2009).

3. Hartford’s initial denial letter implicitly notified Takata that a physician’s recitation of her reported symptoms would not be sufficient for Hartford to reverse its initial termination of benefits. Takata, moreover, to this day has still not presented objective medical evidence demonstrating the extent of her disability, even though she without question had the opportunity to do so in this appeal. See Saffon v. Wells Fargo & Co. Long Term Disability Plan, 522 F.3d 863, 872 (9th Cir.2008). Therefore, Hartford did not violate 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1(g)(l)(iii).

AFFIRMED.

*

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

572 F. App'x 497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/takata-v-hartford-comprehensive-employee-benefit-service-co-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack