Court Error – Abuse of Discretion

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Stephanie Dorris v. Unum Life Insurance Company

Case No.: 19-1701

Officials: HAMILTON, SCUDDER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Court Error – Abuse of Discretion

Courts and practitioners frequently say that § 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), provides for “de novo review” of certain decisions relating to welfare plan benefits. That phrase is really a misnomer. At least in this circuit, ERISA de novo review requires no review at all, but an independent decision. In such a case, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving not that the plan administrator erred, but that she is entitled to the benefits she seeks.

Stephanie Dorris did not fully recognize her burden. After her disability insurance provider, Unum Life Insurance Company of America, terminated her benefits, she fought hard to prove that Unum’s explanation for its decision was wrong. She convinced the district court that it was, so the court proceeded to decide whether Dorris was then entitled to benefits. It saw barely a thing in the administrative record going to that question, and no attempt from Dorris to supplement the record. Based on this lack of evidence, the court entered judgment in Unum’s favor. On appeal, Dorris contends that some of the evidence proved her entitlement to benefits, or alternatively, that the district court should have given her the opportunity to supplement the record after judgment. Because we see no clear error in the district court’s factual findings nor an abuse of discretion in its decision to limit itself to the record before it, we affirm the judgment.

Affirmed

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.