LD v. United Behavioral Health, No. 20-cv-02254-YGR (JCS), 2022 WL 17408010 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2022) (Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero)
This week’s notable decision ended a longstanding discovery clash between the parties in this ERISA and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) class action brought by participants of ERISA-governed healthcare plans challenging
Good morning, ERISA Watchers! There were no notable circuit court decisions this past week, so we have chosen to highlight two published district court decisions from matters involving disability claims. The first is favorable to plan participants and the second is not. Is it any surprise that the former is from within the Ninth Circuit?
Enjoy the long read of the summaries below. Until next week. Stay safe and be well.
The first case: Jones v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., No. CV-19-04669-PHX-DLR, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2020 WL 2126498 (D. Ariz. May 5, 2020). The almost Sisyphean topic of discovery in ERISA benefits cases added a new page when, on de novo review, the court required LINA “to respond to discovery that delves into the number of times it retained and the amount of money it paid to third-party vendors in disability and LWOP claims and medical reviewers utilized here, LINA-generated performance evaluations of the vendors and medical reviewers, the number of times they concluded that a claimant could perform work, LINA-generated performance evaluations for LINA employee Mary Faltaous, and any guidelines and manuals used by LINA in evaluating this claim, including the ‘DMS Expert Resource Professional conduct Statement’ and any guidelines and manuals.”
Continue Reading District Court Permits Vast Conflict Discovery in Life Waiver of Premium Dispute Subject to De Novo Review
Good morning, ERISA Watchers! There were no notable circuit court decisions from this past week, so exercising some editorial discretion, this week’s notable decision is a firm victory in a discovery dispute involving a self-funded long-term disability plan, Chacko v. AT&T Umbrella Benefit Plan No. 3, No. 2:19-CV-01837-JAM-DB, 2020 WL 1984171 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2020).
Before going into the decision, I want to take a step back to discuss the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Demer v. IBM Corporation LTD Plan, 835 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2016). Demer alleged that there was (1) a structural conflict of interest since MetLife both decided claims for the disability plan and was responsible for paying those claims; and (2) at least two of the doctors that MetLife hired to review the medical records “have performed a significant number of reviews for MetLife and have received significant compensation for their services.” Demer, 835 F.3d at 900. The court then analyzed these two areas of conflict separately: the structural conflict of interest and the financial conflict of independent physician consultants. Id. at 900-903.
Continue Reading Courts Find Discovery of Independent Physician Consultants’ Financial Conflict Permissible in Absence of Structural Conflict