The opinion of the court was delivered by: Anthony W. Ishii Chief United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AUGMENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD Doc. # 24
This is an action pursuant to the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. In this action, plaintiff Laura Williams ("Plaintiff") seeks to recover benefits she contends were wrongfully denied by defendant Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"). In the instant motion, the court considers Plaintiff's request to augment the administrative record with a declaration from an attending physician to clarify a significant material ambiguity in the administrative record. Federal question jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Venue is proper in this court.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff was employed by defendant Community Hospitals of Central California as a rehabilitation scheduler. As part of her benefits package, Plaintiff was enrolled in the disability plan administered by Community Hospitals of Central California dba Community Medical Centers Employee Benefit Plan (hereinafter, the "Plan"). Defendant Sun Life functioned as the third-party insurer of the Plan and also functioned as the claims administrator. Plaintiff alleges that she "sustained a serious injury on March 13, 2006 when the hydraulics in a chair in which she sat suddenly failed and 'bottomed out.'" Doc. # 25 at 2:10-11. Plaintiff alleges she suffered herniation of a disk in her spine and has experienced severe low back pain since the accident. The day following the accident, Plaintiff was referred by her employer to Dr. Rhea Wong, M.D., Ph.D., who placed Plaintiff on temporary disability. Plaintiff subsequently underwent surgery on or about July 27, 2007, to correct the disk herniation. The surgery did not resolve Plaintiff's complaints and a second surgery was apparently undertaken at an later, unknown, date.
Plaintiff applied for group disability benefits under the Plan on or about November 14, 2006. Sun Live denied the application on February 27, 2007, "based on their determination [Plaintiff] was not medically disabled from returning to her job during the entire Elimination Period from March 13, 2006 through September 11, 2006." Doc. # 25 at 3:5-7. Plaintiff appealed the denial. On September 17, 2007, Sun Life affirmed the denial and informed Plaintiff that all administrative remedies had been exhausted.
Plaintiff alleges that Sun Life's determination that Plaintiff was able to work during the elimination period was based on the review of Plaintiff's medical records conducted by Dr. Victoria Langa, who "prepared a report dated August 31, 2007, in which [Dr. Langa] concluded that 'between March 13, 2006, and July 12, 2007, [Plaintiff] could have performed primarily sedentary work activities that did not require her to sit for longer than 45 minutes at a time or sit for longer than six hours of an eight hour workday.'" Doc. # 25 at 4:1-3.
Plaintiff further alleges that Dr. Langa's report, which was contrary to the determinations of all of Plaintiff's treating physicians, was based on Dr. Langa's erroneous interpretation of an Attending Physician Statement prepared by Dr. Wong. The Attending Physician Statement was dated February 1, 2007. The Statement is in the form of a "check the box" form that is intended to indicate the hours per work day the subject can stand/walk, sit, or drive. The Attending Physician Statement is a form designed by Sun Life and provided to physicians for the apparent purpose of summarizing medical evaluation information for the purpose of insurance review. Plaintiff alleges the portion of the Attending Physician Statement that is at issue in the instant motion appeared and was filled out by Dr. Wong as follows:
A. In a normal day, the patient may:
1. Stand/Walk G None [x] 1-4 hours G 4-6 hours G 6-10 hours
2. Sit [x] 1-3 hours G 3-5 hours G 5-10 hours
3. Drive [x] 1-3 hours G 3-5 hours G 5-10 hours Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Wong "understood that what she was indicating when she filled out the Attending Physician Statement was that [Plaintiff] could sit intermittently for a total of 1-3 hours in an eight hour day and could only sit for a total of 1-3 hours providing [Plaintiff] continued taking the large doses of pain medication that she was then consuming." Doc. # 25 at 25-27. Plaintiff alleges Sun Life came to the unsupported conclusion that Plaintiff could sit for up to a 45-minute period up to an aggregate of 6 hours per day by adding the high end of the sit and drive questions listed above.
Defendants point out that the Attending Physician's Statement was not before the claims administrator at the time the initial decision to deny benefits was made. The initial medical record review was performed by a Dr. Sarni. The Attending Physician Statement was apparently received subsequent to the initial decision by Dr. Sarni and did not alter the determination that Plaintiff was not disabled from performing her job during the entire 180-day exclusion period. Sun Life acknowledges that the Attending Physician Statement was available during the appeal and acknowledges that Plaintiff informed Sun Life that, in her opinion, the misinterpretation of Dr. Wong's Attending Physician Statement was a significant basis for Sun Life's decision to deny benefits. Defendants point out Plaintiff was advised that she could submit additional information during the appeal process that she felt had not been considered, but declined to do so. Defendants do not deny that the Attending Physician Statement was material in the medical record review by Dr. Langa. Defendants do allege that all medical reviews were based not on any one piece of information, but on all the information before the evaluator at the time of the decision.
The default standard for the judicial review of benefits decisions by plan administrators in ERISA cases is de novo unless the plan unambiguously retains discretion in the plan administrator. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 105 (1989). The parties in this case do not dispute that the proper standard for review is de novo. Under de novo review the district court simply determines whether the plan administrator correctly or incorrectly denied benefits. Opeta v. Northwest Airlines Pension Plan, 484 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2007). "Where there is a sufficiently developed record before the plan administrator the court should not review document not submitted to the plan administrator prior to its decision." Mongeluzo v. Baxter Travenol Long Term Disability, 46 F.3d 938, 943 (9th Cir. 1995). However, a district court employing de novo review of a ...