Galm v. Eaton Corporation - Northern District of Iowa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$C:\Documents and Settings\sey\Desktop\JSS OPINIONS\JSS-05-CV ...$

Given these five physicians and one psychologist were in unanimity in their conclusion that Galm was not disabled under the “any occupation” requirement of the Plan, it is the opinion of this court that, based upon the record before the plan administrator, Eaton did not abuse its discretion in determining that Galm was not disabled under the terms of the Plan for second-tier long term disability benefits. This court is satisfied that based upon the record before the plan administrator that the plan administrator's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was thus reasonable. See Jackson, 303 F.3d at 887 (stating that a “decision is reasonable if a reasonable person could have reached a similar decision, given the evidence before him, not that a reasonable person would have reached that decision”). Therefore, the court concludes that Eaton is entitled to judgment in its favor on Galm’s claim under ERISA. III. CONCLUSION The court concludes that, as a matter of law, on the record here, Eaton’s decision to deny Galm second-tier long term disability benefits is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the court finds that Eaton is entitled to judgment in its favor on Galm’s claim under ERISA. The denial of second- tier long term disability benefits was not an abuse of discretion as a matter of law, because Eaton’s interpretation of the Plan was not unreasonable and there was substantial evidence supporting Eaton’s determination that Galm was not “disabled” within the meaning of the Plan. \ 30
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 3rd day of November, 2006. __________________________________ MARK W. BENNETT CHIEF JUDGE, U. S. DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA 31
Page 1 and 2: To Be Published: IN THE UNITED STAT
Page 3 and 4: 978, 984-986 (S.D. Iowa 2005), both
Page 5 and 6: in his decision: Record at 00026. T
Page 7 and 8: certified in physical medicine and
Page 9 and 10: year did not indicate any ongoing p
Page 11 and 12: the absence of significant sensory
Page 13 and 14: Record at 001359. intention to rece
Page 15 and 16: Record at 000197. Galm is not emplo
Page 17 and 18: 1. Deferential review Under the def
Page 19 and 20: c. The deferential review applicabl
Page 21 and 22: plan administrator, “something ak
Page 23 and 24: U.S. 1136 (2000)). This is particul
Page 25 and 26: determinations under the Plan. Reco
Page 27 and 28: Record at 001628. With all of the a
Page 29: Record at 001359. to the effects of

Galm v. Eaton Corporation - Northern District of Iowa

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?