Marcus May v. At&t Umbrella Benefit Plan 1

MEMORANDUM

AT & T Umbrella Benefit Plan No. 1 appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in an ERISA action filed by Marcus May. AT & T argues that its third-party benefits administrator, Sedg-wick, did not abuse its discretion in terminating May’s short term disability benefits because May failed to carry his burden of proving disability. AT & T also argues that, even if the termination was improper, the district court abused its discretion in remanding for an award of benefits as opposed to further proceedings. We affirm.

Based on our own review of the record, we are “left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake [was] committed,” when Sedgwick terminated May’s short-term disability benefits. See Salomaa v. Honda Long Term Disability Plan, 642 F.3d 666, 676 (9th Cir.2011). May’s treating physicians reported that he was unable to work at his current job, which required him to be on his feet for eight hours a day. A request that he be permitted to sit in a chair during part of that time was rejected by his employer. The reports of May’s treating physicians were corroborated by at least one piece of objective medical evidence in the record, the MRI. The MRI…