Mitchell v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

Good Law
523 F. Supp. 2d 1132·2007 WL 4302799·2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90612
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaDecember 3, 2007CV 05-00810 DDP (RNBx)California7,696 words

Opinion

Opinion

Pregerson, J.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Plaintiff Michael Mitchell brings this action under 29 U.S.C. section 1132 (a)(1)(B) seeking long-term disability (“LTD”) benefits pursuant to a benefit plan provided by his employer, CB Richard Ellis (“CBRE”). Mitchell claims a disability for several health problems, including chronic fatigue syndrome, restless legs syndrome, hemo-chromatosis, and depression.

From January 1, 2000 until December 1, 2003, the LTD plan was administered un der a group insurance policy by Defendant and cross-claimant UNUM Life Insurance Company of America (“UNUM”). As of January 1, 2004, the LTD plan was administered under a group insurance policy by Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MET”).

In April 2004, when MET covered the plan, Mitchell filed with MET for LTD benefits. In his initial administrative claim with MET, Mitchell stated that his disability began in October 2003, when UNUM covered the plan. MET initially denied Mitchell’s claim because he was “still working.” MET then denied Mitchell’s appeal based upon a lack of objective evidence that Mitchell was disabled under the plan. After the appeal, Mitchell instituted this action. For the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.