Rabinowitz

Rabinowitz v. Paul Revere Life Insurance

Good Law
91 F. App'x 563
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 2, 2004No. 01-57094; D.C. No. CV-00-07675-GAFCalifornia1,291 words

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…

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.