Harris
Harris v. Standard Insurance
Opinion
Lead Opinion
*584 MEMORANDUM **
Plaintiff-Appellant Evelyn Harris appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants-Appellees Standard Insurance Company, et al. (Standard), in her ease alleging wrongful denial of benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461 . Because the parties are already familiar with the facts, we do not present them here except as necessary to explain our decision. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm the district court’s ruling.
Under the terms of the contract between Harris and Standard, Standard had discretionary authority sufficient to warrant abuse of discretion review. See Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 965 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc). Any procedural violations Standard may have committed do not amount to the “wholesale and flagrant violations” required for de novo review. See id. at 971 . Therefore, the district court correctly reviewed Standard’s decision for an abuse of discretion.
However, Standard did commit procedural violations by including new explanations for its denial of benefits in the “interim” denial letter of September 24,…