Professional Documents
Culture Documents
February 7, 2007
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TR ACY LEA CH ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CO NTINEN TAL CASUALTY
C OM PA N Y ,
No. 06-3148
(D.C. No. 04-CV-1358-JTM )
(D . Kan.)
Defendant-Appellee.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent w ith Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
B ACKGROUND
Russell Stover Candies, Inc. (RSC) administered a group disability plan for
its employees through an insurance contract w ith Continental Casualty Company.
Continental had discretionary authority to interpret the plans terms and to
determine eligibility for plan benefits. The plan defined disability as an injury
or illness that renders an employee continuously unable to perform the M aterial
and Substantial Duties of [his or her] Regular Occupation, R., Doc. 18, Ex. 1 at
17, and it required objective medical findings as proof of disability, id. at 26.
M r. Leach worked for RSC as a plant manager. His duties required, among
other things, the abilities to walk, stand, sit, lift ten pounds, and react under
pressure and meet production needs on [a] daily basis in a [h]igh stress
environment. Id. at 609. M r. Leachs last work day was M arch 7, 2003, but he
remained on the payroll for several months.
In June 2003, M r. Leach applied for disability benefits. His family-practice
physician, Dr. M ark Sheern, supplied a medical statement, listing M r. Leachs
conditions as coronary artery disease, recurrent headaches, and probable
autoimmune process. Id. at 635. Additionally, Dr. Sheern opined that
M r. Leach was unable to lift repeatedly, stand for [an] extended period of time,
[and] attend for a period of time to task without rest period. Id. at 636.
Continental referred M r. Leachs file to Dr. Eugene Truchelut, an internist,
who did not see any findings on physical or laboratory examination which would
-2-
-4-
D ISCUSSION
I. Summary Judgment Standards
W e review the district courts summary judgment de novo. Stover v.
M artinez, 382 F.3d 1064, 1070 (10th Cir. 2004). Summary judgment is
appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In applying this standard,
we view the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most
favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. See Stover, 382 F.3d at 1070.
II. ERISA
[W ]e review de novo the district courts application of the appropriate
standards to a plan administrators denial or grant of benefits under a plan.
DeGrado v. Jefferson Pilot Fin. Ins. Co., 451 F.3d 1161, 1167 (10th Cir. 2006).
W here, as here, the benefit plan gives the administrator discretionary authority to
determine eligibility for benefits and to construe the plans terms, the
administrators actions are analyzed for arbitrariness and capriciousness. Id. But
because of the inherent conflict of interest arising from Continental acting as both
the insurer and the plan administrator, we undertake a sliding scale analysis,
where the degree of deference accorded the Plan Administrator is inversely
related to the seriousness of the conflict. Id. at 1167-68 (quotations omitted).
-5-
M r. Leachs argument that RTCs production areas are not condusive [sic]
to someone on coumadin therapy, Aplt. Br. at 2, is not supported by any
reference to the record. And our independent review of the record has not
uncovered any evidence that M r. Leachs coumadin treatment prevented him from
performing his duties. Dr. Truchelut stated that a person taking coumadin would
need to be careful in hazardous work environments where lacerations could occur,
R., Doc. 18, Ex.1 at 453, and Dr. Friedman suggested that such a person could not
work in occupations requiring climbing or operating dangerous machinery, id. at
49. But M r. Leachs duties apparently did not require climbing or operating
dangerous machinery, and no hazards were listed on RTCs job-analysis form.
See id. at 608-09.
-6-
M onroe G. M cKay
Circuit Judge
-7-