Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Before
Barron, Selya and Stahl,
Circuit Judges.
1001-1461,
presents
two
issues.
The
first
concerns
the
The
See 29
At the same
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff-appellant
Joseph
McDonough
worked
in
the
stroke.
appellant
was
eligible
for
disability
benefits
Biogen
and
what
extent
employees
and
beneficiaries
are
entitled to benefits."
A plan participant is disabled within the meaning of the
plan on any day that the participant is "not able to perform the
material duties of [his] own occupation solely because of: disease
or injury; and [his] work earnings are 80% or less of [his]
adjusted predisability earnings."
are
those
"normally
participant's]
reasonably[]
participant's
own
for
occupation,"
omitted
"own
required
or
the
so
long
modified."
occupation"
as
the
performance
as
they
The
plan
occupation
of
[the
"cannot
defines
be
a
"routinely
-3-
prognosis.
physician (PCP) referred him for mental health care in June 2009.
Some of his health-care providers suggested that his physical
symptoms
might
be
reaction
to
stress
associated
with
the
Soon
-4-
findings
[sufficient]
to
support
functional
appellant
challenged
the
benefits-termination
submitted
medical
records
from
physicians,
In support,
mental
health
this
juncture,
Aetna
engaged
four
doctors,
two
In written reports,
-5-
These
in
his
own
sedentary
level
occupation."
Aetna
-6-
directly
or
indirectly,
the
requirements
of
the
Although
his suit named multiple defendants, the parties later agreed that
Aetna was the only proper defendant with respect to the benefitstermination claim.
Early on, the appellant made written requests of both
Aetna and Biogen, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 1024(b)(4), for "a
complete copy of [his] plan, summary plan description, policy, and
any and all attachments and amendments relating to his [LTD] Plan."
Aetna responded by providing documents entitled "Your Group Plan"
and "Summary of Coverage."
summary judgment motions, Aetna disclosed for the first time the
policy agreement between Aetna and Biogen.
Life Ins. Co., No. 11-11167, 2014 WL 690319, at *12 (D. Mass. Feb.
-7-
19, 2014).
See 29 U.S.C.
1132(a)(1)(A), (c)(1)(B).
In
due
season,
the
parties
cross-moved
for
summary
See id.
ANALYSIS
The appellant advances two claims of error.
The first
relates to the district court's finding that Aetna's benefitstermination decision is supportable.
Termination of Benefits.
See
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115 (1989).
Id.
Sec. Ins. Co. & Mgmt. Co. for Merrimack Anesthesia Assocs. LTD
Plan, 705 F.3d 58, 61 (1st Cir. 2013).
Here,
-9-
claims.
interest.
upon
to
temper
the
administrator's decision.
deference
afforded
to
the
claims
economy.
He
adds
that
Aetna
conflated
the
"own
administrator
mis-weighed
the
medical
and
vocational
evidence.
The record contains a plethora of reports from a wide
variety of physicians and mental health professionals.2
These
As we explain below,
however, there is a threshold issue here and this appeal does not
turn on what the medical evidence shows.
We begin with bedrock: an ERISA benefits determination
must be a reasoned determination, and "[a] benefits determination
cannot be 'reasoned' when the [claims] administrator sidesteps the
central inquiry."
Id. at 67.
See Elliott v.
Metro. Life Ins. Co., 473 F.3d 613, 618-19 (6th Cir. 2006).
Only
the
against
appellant's
this
LTD
backdrop,
benefits
Aetna's
was
not
decision
a
to
reasoned
-11-
the
appellant's
occupation."
"own
occupation"
or
"own
sedentary
level
On
See
Here,
failed
to
take
such
requirements
into
Because
account,
the
rational
decision
to
terminate
disability
benefits
continuing disability is tied to the cognitive demands of a highpressure environment where he was on call 24 hours a day, 365 days
a year and responsible for managing systems and employees.
That
performed
in
the
national
economy.
Such
claims
We hold that
standard
to
an
appropriate
-15-
conclusion
regarding
the
As
claim
and
remand
to
the
district
court
with
F.3d 289, 295 (1st Cir. 2011); Buffonge v. Prudential Ins. Co. of
Am., 426 F.3d 20, 31-32 (1st Cir. 2005).
brings
Amount of Penalty.
us
to
the
appellant's
plaint
that
the
of
the
policy
agreement.
Lamenting
that
Aetna's
discretion.
issue here, the maximum daily penalty was increased to $110 per
day.
November
5,
the
2009.
appellant
demanded
the
While
received
much
he
plan
of
documents
the
on
pertinent
-17-
On
appeal,
Aetna
does
not
gainsay
that
its
late
The battle is
There is no need
834, 848 (2d Cir. 2013); Romero v. SmithKline Beecham, 309 F.3d
113, 120 (3d Cir. 2002); see also Sullivan, 262 F.3d at 52.
These
McDonough, 2014 WL
516, 526-27, 529 (4th Cir. 1999); United States v. Ekco Housewares,
Inc., 62 F.3d 806, 814, 816 (6th Cir. 1995).
This is such a case.
decisions
declining
to
impose
-19-
monetary
penalty
for
late
44, 55-56 (1st Cir. 2002); Sullivan, 262 F.3d at 52; RodriguezAbreu, 986 F.2d at 588-89.
CONCLUSION
We need go no further. For the reasons elucidated above,
$5,000 is affirmed.
So Ordered.
-20-