Chadwick

Chadwick v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

Good Law
498 F. Supp. 2d 1309·2007 WL 2156078·2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53688
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 25, 2007CIV. 06-2245 FCD EFBCalifornia4,928 words

Opinion

Opinion

Damrell, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, aka MetLife’s (“defendant”) motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff Laura J. Chadwick’s (“plaintiff’) complaint raising claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). (See Notice of Removal, filed Oct. 12, 2006 [Docket # 2].) Plaintiff seeks long-term disability (“LTD”) benefits under the EdFund Employee Welfare Plan (“Plan”).

For the reasons set forth below, the court finds that the proper standard of review of this matter is abuse of discretion, as opposed to de novo, and thereunder, the court cannot find that defendant acted arbitrarily or capriciously in denying plaintiffs LTD benefits claim. As such, the court GRANTS defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

BACKGROUND

A. Terms of the Plan

Edfund, plaintiffs employer, adopted the Plan to provide its employees with income in the event of certain disabilities. Plaintiff was a financial aid analyst at Ed-fund until April 2, 2004, when she alleged she was disabled from working due to fibromyalgia — a syndrome consisting of aching pain and stiffness in one or numerous parts of the body. (ADMIN 0117.)…

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.