Terry Aluisi v. Unum Life Insurance Company Of

MEMORANDUM

1. The district court did not clearly err in finding that the record was adequate for review. See Montour v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 588 F.3d 623, 629 (9th Cir.2009). The record contained current medical records from five doctors; results of X-rays, MRIs, CT scans, and other diagnostics; correspondence between Unum and Aluisi and his doctors; and a personal interview with Aluisi. ERISA requires that the plan administrator engage in a meaningful dialogue and allow the claimant an opportunity to submit evidence to support his claim. Saffon v. Wells Fargo & Co. Long Term Disability Plan, 522 F.3d 863, 870 (9th Cir.2008). This includes telling the beneficiary, in language he can understand, the reason for the denial of his claim and what additional information is necessary to perfect his claim. 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1 (g)(1). At oral argument Aluisi conceded that Unum did not violate any of ERISA’s statutory procedures. Unum’s denial letter clearly explained to Aluisi that his claim was being denied because video surveillance contradicted his claims that he was in extreme pain after more than fifteen minutes of sitting, standing, or walking. Aluisi was given the…