Hamma

Hamma v. Intel Corp.

Good Law
642 F. Supp. 2d 1144·2009 WL 799283·2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24683
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 23, 20092:07-cv-01795California3,144 words

Opinion

Opinion

Burrell, J.

ORDER

Defendants Intel Corporation, Intel Corporation Long Term Disability Plan, Intel Disability Appeals Committee (collectively “Intel”), and Matrix Absence Management (“Matrix”) seek summary judgment on Plaintiffs claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(1)(b) (“ERISA”) for long term disability (“LTD”) benefits. Plaintiff opposes the motion and requests in her Opposition brief that summary judgment be granted in her favor. Plaintiffs motion has not been duly noticed for hearing and is denied on that ground. The parties dispute whether Defendants abused their discretion in determining Plaintiff did not present “Objective Medical Findings” that her condition, Chiari I Malformation, was a “Disability” as defined by the LTD Plan (the “Plan”). Additionally, the parties dispute whether Plaintiffs claim should be evaluated under an abuse of discretion standard of review or a heightened standard of review since Intel funded the Plan.

Background

Plaintiff worked at Intel from June 2000 until February 2004 as an Administrative Support Specialist. On March 12, 2004, Plaintiff applied for LTD benefits under the Plan, listing her disabling condition as “Chiari malformation and Syringomyelia.”…

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.