Zimpfer
Zimpfer v. ITT Long Term Disability Plan for Salaried Employees
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM ***
Patrick Zimpfer appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the ITT Long Term Disability Plan for Salaried Employees (the Plan) on his claim for improper denial of benefits. We affirm.
(1) The Plan documents were properly admitted because they are not hearsay. See Stuart v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 217 F.3d 1145, 1154 (9th Cir.2000); United States v. Rubier, 651 F.2d 628, 630 (9th Cir.1981) (per curiam). Of course, documents must be authenticated, and these were. See United States v. Tank, 200 F.3d 627, 630 (9th Cir.2000).
(2) The Plan unambiguously confers discretion upon the Plan’s Administrative Committee, and the Committee *320 properly delegated that discretion to Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. We have previously so held. See Madden v. ITT Long Term Disability Plan, 914 F.2d 1279, 1284-85 (9th Cir.1990). Moreover, the fact that the Summary Plan Description does not specifically mention that the Plan’s Administrative Committee has discretion does not affect that discretion. See Atwood v. Newmont Gold Co., Inc., 45 F.3d 1317, 1321-22 (9th Cir.1995); see also Martin v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Va., Inc., 115 F.3d 1201, 1205 (4th Cir.…