RUBEN GONZALES V. UNUM LIFE INS CO OF AMERICA, No. 13-56543 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 18 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RUBEN GONZALES, Plaintiff - Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 13-56543 D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00468-AJBWVG v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA; et al., MEMORANDUM * Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted November 5, 2015 Pasadena, California Before: SCHROEDER and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges and CHHABRIA,** District Judge. Ruben Gonzales applied for disability benefits under an ERISA plan. Unum, the plan administrator, denied Gonzales’s application for benefits. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Vince Chhabria, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. Gonzales then brought this action against Unum. The district court affirmed Unum’s denial of benefits, and Gonzales appealed. We affirm. All of Gonzales's arguments on appeal are without merit. Unum properly disclosed the fact that it had communicated with Gonzales’s doctors. See Saffon v. Wells Fargo & Co. Long Term Disability Plan, 522 F.3d 863, 873 n.4 (9th Cir. 2008). The district court adequately considered evidence that Unum had a conflict of interest. See Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 967-69 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc). And for the reasons expressed in the district court's thorough and well-reasoned decision, Unum did not abuse its discretion in determining whether Gonzales was disabled under the Long-Term Disability Plan.1 AFFIRMED. 1 Though Gonzales asserted at oral argument that he also intended to challenge the denial of benefits under the Short-Term Disability Plan, any such challenge is waived. See In re Lowenschuss, 67 F.3d 1394, 1402 (9th Cir. 1995) (“An issue not discussed in a brief, although mentioned in the Statement of Issues, is deemed to be waived.”). 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.