Lee v. American Airlines, Inc. et al, No. 4:2010cv00377 - Document 45 (N.D. Okla. 2011)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; denying 39 Motion to Accelerate/Extend/Reset Hearing(s)/Deadline(s) (FHM1, Chambers)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA GRIZZ LEE, PLAINTIFF, vs. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.; CIGNA CORP, doing business as CIGNA GROUP INSURANCE; TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA; and LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, a Subsidiary of CIGNA Corporation, DEFENDANTS. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 10-CV-377-CVE-FHM ORDER Plaintiff s Motion for Enlargement of Time to Supplement Administrative Record [Dkt. 39] is before the Court for decision. Defendant has filed a response and the time to file a reply has expired. Plaintiff seeks an order allowing him to supplement the administrative record with evidence of the medical treatment he received subsequent to Defendant s decision denying his claim for benefits. Plaintiff did not identify the specific evidence he wants considered. In support of his motion, Plaintiff contends that the de novo standard of review applies to this case and that under Hall v. UNUM, 300 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2002), supplementation of the administrative record is appropriate. (supplementation of record allowed under exceptional circumstances). Plaintiff has not presented support for his assertion that the de novo standard of review applies to this case. In Defendant s response to Plaintiff s earlier motion to supplement the administrative record [Dkt. 34], Defendant set forth the contract language the Defendant contends confers discretion on the administrator. Based upon those contract provisions and in light of Plaintiff s failure to discuss them or illuminate the rational for contending a de novo review is appropriate, it appears that the arbitrary and capricious standard of review will apply to this case which will make the Hall exceptional circumstances analysis inapplicable. If the de novo standard of review does apply, Plaintiff has not established that the administrative record should be supplemented. Even under the de novo standard, the Court does not make the claims decision anew. Jewell v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 508 F.3d 1303, 1308 (10th Cir. 2007)(court does not function as a substitute plan administrator). Accordingly, when exceptional circumstances exist under Hall, which make the supplementation of the record appropriate, the supplemental evidence must relate to the administrator s decision and must also qualify as necessary under the criteria suggested in Hall. Hall, 300 F.3d at 1203. In this case, Plaintiff has not identified the specific supplemental evidence and has not made any attempt to demonstrate the necessity of the supplementation. Plaintiff s Motion for Enlargement of Time to Supplement Administrative Record [Dkt. 39] is DENIED. SO ORDERED this 19th day of January, 2011. 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
