Thomas
Thomas v. Oregon Fruit Products Co.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Fisher, J.
Carol Thomas appeals the district court’s determination that Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (“Reliance”) did not abuse its discretion in denying her application for long-term disability benefits. 1 On appeal, Thomas’ principal arguments are that the district court applied an incorrect standard of review — -abuse of discretion, rather than de novo — and that she had a right to a trial by jury because her claim is legal in nature. The district court had jurisdiction over Thomas’ Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (e), and we have jurisdiction to review the district court proceedings, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . In light of Kearney v. Standard Ins. Co., 175 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 120 S.Ct. 398 , 145 L.Ed.2d 310 (1999), we agree that the district court used an erroneous standard of review in evaluating Reliance’s benefits decision; therefore, we remand to the district court for de novo review of Thomas’ claim. We conclude, however, that Thom *993 as is not entitled to a jury trial upon remand.