Banacky
Banacky v. Prudential Insurance Co. of North America
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Appellee Prudential denied Judith Banacky’s claims for benefits under an ERISA disability plan (“Plan”). Because the Plan does not grant discretionary authority in the plan administrator to construe the Plan or determine eligibility, Prudential’s decision to terminate benefits is reviewed de novo. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 114-15 , 109 S.Ct. 948 , 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989); Kearney v. Standard Ins. Co., 175 F.3d 1084, 1090 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc). The district court conducted a bench trial and affirmed Prudential’s denial of benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error. Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 52(a). “Clear error review also applies to the *387 results of ‘essentially factual’ inquiries applying the law to the facts.” Saltarelli v. Bob Baker Group Med. Trust, 35 F.3d 382 , 384 (9th Cir.1994). The district court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Id. at 385.
Two claims for disability benefits are at issue.
A
Having ceased full-time employment in January 1995, Banacky was paid rehabilitation benefits under the disability plan from August 1995…