Rabinowitz
Rabinowitz v. Paul Revere Life Insurance
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Victor Rabinowitz appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Paul Revere Life Insurance Company. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
The central issue raised on appeal is whether Rabinowitz was required to submit to random drug testing under the *565 terms of his Paul Revere insurance policy. We conclude that triable issues of fact preclude the resolution of this issue at this juncture.
A. “PHYSICIAN’S CARE” PROVISION
Paul Revere contends that Rabinowitz was required to submit to random drug testing under the “Physician’s Care” provision of the policy (Section 1.8). The district court agreed, reasoning that Rabinowitz had failed to demonstrate that Paul Revere’s drug testing requirement was inconsistent with the nature of his disorder.
We disagree with the district court’s interpretation of the “Physician’s Care” provision. This provision required Paul Revere to approve Rabinowitz’s treatment plan if that plan was (1) appropriate for his condition under prevailing medical standards; (2) consistent with the nature of his disorder; and (3) intended to return him to his occupation. The proper inquiry is whether…