Wong
Wong v. Aetna Life Insurance
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Lorenz, J.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff brings this action for disability benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Under ERISA § 502, a beneficiary or plan participant may sue in federal court “to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(1)(B); see also CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1866, 1871 , 179 L.Ed.2d 843 (2011).
Under ERISA, plaintiff is entitled to a bench trial on the administrative record. Kearney v. Standard Ins. Co., 175 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 964 , 120 S.Ct. 398 , 145 L.Ed.2d 310 (1999). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(1) provides that:
Unlike a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment, in a Rule 52 motion the court does not determine whether there is an issue of material fact, but whether Aetna abused their discretion. See Kearney, 175 F.3d at 1095 . The Court is to “evaluate the persuasiveness of conflicting testimony,” and make findings of fact. Id.