Mazet v. Halliburton Co. Long Term Disability Plan

MEMORANDUM

David L. Mazet appeals from the district court’s judgment in favor of Appellees Halliburton Company Long Term Disability Plan and Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company. The district court rejected his claim for disability benefits under an employee benefit plan subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). Among his other arguments on appeal, Mazet asserts that the district court committed reversible error by reviewing Appellees’ denial of benefits for an abuse of discretion. We review de novo the district court’s choice of the applicable standard of review. Montour v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 588 F.3d 623, 629 (9th Cir.2009). We conclude that the district court applied the wrong standard and accordingly vacate the judgment in favor of Appellees.

“De novo is the default standard of review.” Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc) (citing Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115 , 109 S.Ct. 948 , 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989); Kearney v. Standard Ins. Co., 175 F.3d 1084, 1089 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc)). To change the standard of review, the ERISA plan must unambiguously provide…