GROSSO v. AETNA LIFE INS CO et al, No. 1:2012cv00327 - Document 43 (D. Me. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE , denying 30 Motion for Judgment on the Record for Judicial Review (ERISA); granting in part and denying in part 31 Motion for Judgment on the Record for Judicial Review to the e xtent Plaintiff requests a finding of disability (ERISA); Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees are denied without prejudice in the event Plaintiff wishes to bring that as a separate motion. By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (MSH) Modified on 10/21/2013 to match the title of the order with the docket text(lrc).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT District of Maine DOUGLAS GROSSO, Plaintiff v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:12-cv-00327-GZS ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on September 4, 2013, her Recommended Decision (ECF No. 40). Plaintiff filed his Objection to the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 41) on September 23, 2013. Defendants filed their Response to Plaintiff s Objection to the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 42) on October 10, 2013. I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision; and I concur with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in her Recommended Decision, and determine that no further proceeding is necessary. 1. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby AFFIRMED. 2. It is hereby ORDERED that the Motion for Judgment on the Record filed by Defendant Aetna Life Insurance Company (ECF No. 30) is hereby DENIED. 3. It is hereby ORDERED that the Motion for Judgment on the Record filed by Plaintiff (ECF No. 31) is GRANTED IN PART based on the lack of substantial evidence to support Defendant Aetna s decision and DENIED to the extent he requests a finding of disability. 4. It is hereby ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to the claims administrator for a new review of Plaintiff s claim in accordance with the Magistrate Judge s recommendations contained in the Recommended Decision. 5. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff s request for attorney s fees are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in the event Plaintiff wishes to bring that as a separate motion. /s/George Z. Singal_____________ U.S. District Judge Dated this 20th day of October, 2013.
]]>
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.
