Sgro

Sgro v. Danone Waters of North America

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 2, 200806-55916California2,339 words

Opinion

Opinion

Facts

Mitchell Sgro worked for defendant Danone Waters until he became disabled, at which point he applied for disability benefits from MetLife, the company that makes benefits determinations for Danone Waters’s ERISA plan. But, according to Sgro, MetLife refused to consider his claim because he didn’t provide copies of his medical records. Sgro objected to paying for photocopying the records and demanded that MetLife do so, but MetLife refused. Sgro eventually paid $412 for the copies, and MetLife thereupon considered and denied his claim. Sgro then asked for copies of all of MetLife’s documents pertaining to his claim. MetLife SGRO v. DANONE WATERS 8057 complied with this request in part, but Sgro claims the com- pany held back the notes kept by its claims personnel.

Sgro sued MetLife and Danone Waters in federal court, seeking unpaid benefits, reimbursement of his copying costs, an injunction ordering defendants to pay such costs in the future and statutory penalties for defendants’ failure to turn over the notes kept by MetLife’s personnel. Sgro asserted causes of action under state and federal law. The district court dismissed his state-law claims…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.