Heaton v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
Opinion
Opinion
ORDER
The memorandum disposition filed on November 23, 2009, is amended. An amended memorandum disposition will be filed concurrently with this order. With these amendments, the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing as moot. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc may be filed.
AMENDED MEMORANDUM
Susan Heaton appeals the district court’s order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Because the record manifests a genuine factual dispute about whether Heaton became totally disabled while she was a full-time Isis employee, summary judgment was improper. We vacate the judgment below and remand for further proceedings.
Heaton’s eligibility for benefits turns on whether she met her long-term disability plan’s definition of “total disability” while she was a full-time Isis employee covered by the plan.
A factual dispute over the extent of Hea-ton’s disability arose before Heaton’s last day of full-time employment at Isis on April 27, 2000, when she was indisputably a “Covered Person” under the plan. Prudential and Isis do not dispute that Heaton continued to work at her own occupation through April 27, 2000.