Carter
Carter v. Hewlett Packard Co. Income Protection Plan
Opinion
lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Debra Carter, an employee at Hewlett-Packard, applied for long-term disability benefits for a number of physical and psychological illnesses. Hewlett-Packard, through its plan administrator Voluntary Plan Administrators (VPA), denied benefits. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, Mongeluzo v. Baxter Travenol Long Term Disability Benefit Plan, 46 F.3d 938, 942 (9th Cir.1995), and the district court’s choice and application of standard of review, Abatie v. Alta Health and Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 962 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc). Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we need not recount it here.
I
As default, district courts review challenges to benefit denials de novo. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115 , 109 S.Ct. 948 , 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989). If the benefit plan gives the plan administrator or fiduciary “discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan,” the denial is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id. Hewlett-Packard’s Income Protection Plan unambiguously confers discretion onto VPA.