Ines Ibrahim v. Bayer Corp Disability Plan

MEMORANDUM

The facts and procedural posture of this case are known to the parties, and we do not repeat them here. Appellant Ines Ibrahim challenges the district court’s judgment upholding the denial of her short-term disability benefits by Appellee Bayer Corporation Disability Plan (“Plan”). We affirm the decision of the district court.

The Plan explicitly gives the administrator the discretion to determine whether a beneficiary is disabled and to interpret the terms of the Plan. When the terms of a disability plan confer such discretion on a plan administrator, we review a decision by the administrator to deny benefits for an abuse of discretion. Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 965 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc).

We must account, however, for the fact that the same entity — i.e., Bayer— both administers and funds the Plan. A plan administrator facing this kind of structural conflict of interest may have an improper incentive to deny claims. Our abuse of discretion review in this case should therefore be “informed by the nature, extent, and effect on the decision-making process of any conflict of interest that may appear in the record.” Id. at 967 . Any…