Sethi v. Seagate U.S. LLC Group Disability Income Plan
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Sunita Sethi appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment on her claims for long term disability benefits under an employee benefits plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). We review the district court’s decision de novo, see Tremain v. Bell Indus., Inc., 196 F.3d 970 , 975 (9th Cir.1999), and Liberty Life Assurance Company’s denial of benefits for an abuse of discretion, see Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc). We affirm.
1. Liberty did not abuse its discretion by denying benefits without ad dressing decisions made in her workers’ compensation case. Because Sethi has not shown a conflict between Liberty’s decision and the workers’ compensation decisions, no further explanation was required. Cf. Montour v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 588 F.3d 628, 635-37 (9th Cir.2009).
2. Liberty did not abuse its discretion by denying benefits without further clarifying Dr. Abaci’s opinion. Although Dr. Abaci’s original report was ambiguous, Dr. Abaci clarified in his communications with Dr. Kerstman that Sethi was currently capable of sedentary work. See Schikore v. BankAmerica…