Dishman

Dishman v. UNUM Life Insurance Co. of America

Good Law
2001 Daily Journal DAR 4449·250 F.3d 1272·26 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1203·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3612·2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 8529
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 8, 2001Nos. 99-55963 99-56077California7,384 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Nelson, J.

UNUM Life Insurance Company of America (“UNUM”) appeals a bench trial judgment and consequent attorneys’ fee award in favor of John Dishman, an ERISA plan participant and benefits claimant. On cross-appeal, Dishman asserts that the district court erroneously dismissed as preempted his state law tort claim. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

John Dishman was Executive Director of the Adams, Duque & Hazeltine law firm (“AD & H”) from 1986 until July 1993, when he resigned complaining of debilitating migraine headaches. He successfully applied for long-term disability benefits from UNUM, the insurance company from which AD & H had purchased a long-term disability insurance policy. UNUM began paying Dishman $11,500 monthly in November 1993.

After granting Dishman’s claim for disability benefits, UNUM sought and obtained two reports from Dishman’s neurologist confirming the severity of Dishman’s condition, which had afflicted him since childhood. Moreover, the vocational expert UNUM retained to evaluate Dishman recommended settlement because (1) Dish-man’s medical record “strongly established” the presence and duration of his condition; (2) Dishman…

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.