Dionida

Dionida v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance

Good Law
50 F. Supp. 2d 934·1999 WL 381812·1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14382
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 12, 1999C 97-20860 PVTCalifornia3,840 words

Opinion

Opinion

Trumbull, J.

OPINION AND ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Mercedes Dionida (“Dionida”) is suing Defendants for disability benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). Dionida is a registered nurse who was employed by St. Luke’s Hospital in San Francisco. St. Luke’s provides its employees with the St. Luke’s Hospital Group Long Term Disability Insurance Program (the “LTD Plan”), which is insured by Defendant Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (“Reliance”).

Dionida submitted a claim for disability benefits arising from back and shoulder problems. Reliance initially approved Plaintiffs claim, but shortly thereafter reviewed her claim and denied it based on a Transferable Skills Analysis that identified eight “suitable occupations” for Dionida. On Dionida’s appeal of the denial, Reliance affirmed its decision to deny her claim.

For the reasons discussed below, the court reviews de novo, rather than for abuse of discretion, Reliance’s decision to deny benefits. The court finds that under either standard of review, Reliance’s decision was erroneous because it applied an “any occupation” standard rather than the “regular…

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.