Walker
Walker v. Long-Term Disability Plan of Sponsor Tri-Valley Growers
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Judy Walker appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants (“UNUM”) in this ERISA action. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we recount them here only as necessary to explain our decision.
1. There is no “treating physician rule” in ERISA disability cases, although “[p]lan administrators ... may not arbitrarily refuse to credit a claimant’s reliable evidence, including the opinions of a treating physician.” Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, 538 U.S. 822 , 123 S.Ct. 1965, 1972 , 155 L.Ed.2d 1034 (2003); see also Jebian v. Hewlettr-Packard Co., 349 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir.2003). Hence, UNUM did not deny Walker a “full and fair review,” 29 U.S.C. § 1133 (2), of her eligibility for benefits simply by failing to defer to her treating physician’s views.
2. District courts are to review an ERISA plan administrator’s benefits determination for abuse of discretion only if the operative plan endowed the administrator with such discretion; otherwise, review is de novo. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115 , 109 S.Ct. 948 , 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989). The 1997 UNUM-issued plan (“1997 Plan”), which was in effect when UNUM…