Amy Patrick v. Reliance Standard Life Insure ( 2023 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 21-1681 & 22-1034
_____________
AMY PATRICK, M.D.
v.
RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appellant
_____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware
(District Court No. 1-19-cv-02106)
District Judge: Honorable Colm F. Connolly
_____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
September 21, 2023
(Filed: November 8, 2023)
Before: RESTREPO, McKEE, RENDELL, Circuit Judges.
_________
O P I N I O N*
_________
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Defendant-Appellant Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (“Reliance”)
challenges the District Court’s grant of summary judgment awarding benefits to Plaintiff-
Appellee Amy Patrick, M.D., in this Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(“ERISA”) action. The District Court concluded that Reliance’s classification of Dr.
Patrick as an Internal Medicine Specialist and resulting termination of her disability
benefits were arbitrary and capricious. We agree and will affirm.
I.
Dr. Patrick is a Gastroenterologist with Mid-Atlantic G.I. Consultants, P.A.
(“MAGIC”). She lost partial use of her right shoulder after surgery and began receiving
long-term disability benefits from her insurer, Reliance, in 2009. In 2019,
notwithstanding Reliance’s having paid her benefits for a decade based on her inability to
perform her duties as a Gastroenterologist, Reliance determined that Dr. Patrick was no
longer entitled to benefits because her disability did not prevent her from performing the
regular duties of an Internal Medicine Specialist.
A brief history is required to understand this appeal. In November 2008, when Dr.
Patrick first submitted her disability claim, Reliance conducted a “vocational review.”
The vocational expert concluded that Dr. Patrick’s Regular Occupation under the
Department of Labor’s Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”) Code was an “Internal
Medicine Specialist.” The vocational expert referenced nothing but the DOT Dictionary
to make this determination.
2
Dr. Patrick’s disability insurance policy (“Policy”) defines Regular Occupation as
follows:
“Regular Occupation” means the occupation the Insured is routinely
performing when Total Disability begins. We will look at the insured’s
occupation as it is normally performed in the national economy, and not the
unique duties performed for a specific employer or in a specific locale.
App. 76.
Concurrent with the vocational review, Reliance requested a job description from
Dr. Patrick. She provided a six-week schedule during which about a quarter of her hours
per week were spent performing endoscopic procedures. A letter from Dr. Patrick’s
employer to the insurance company also explained that Dr Patrick “is a full-time
Gastroenterologist. Her daily routine involves a combination of highly demanding
physical (endoscopic procedures) and cognitive activities.” App. 109.
In 2009, Reliance approved Dr. Patrick’s claim and began paying benefits for
Partial Disability. Under the policy terms, Dr. Patrick was considered Totally Disabled.
Reliance’s internal records from 2009 confirm that Dr. Patrick’s “major problem was she
lacks endurance to perform colonoscopy and gastroscopy.” App. 203.
In December 2018, Reliance requested that Dr. Patrick provide updated evidence
of her disability. Accordingly, Reliance requested an updated Attending Physician’s
Statement (“APS”) from her current doctor, Dr. Charles Jobin. On December 18, Dr.
Jobin returned the APS stating that he was treating Dr. Patrick’s left shoulder for Left
Scapulothoracic Bursitus, and that she may return to work with no restrictions. Shortly
thereafter, on January 22, 2019, Reliance sent Dr. Patrick a note explaining that, in light
3
of Dr. Jobin’s evaluation that Dr. Patrick could return to work, it no longer considered her
eligible to receive disability benefits.
In March 2019, Dr. Patrick administratively appealed Reliance’s decision, and
attached a sworn declaration to her appeal from Dr. Jobin, which confirmed, in relevant
part, that he was only considering Dr. Patrick’s left shoulder when he filled out the APS
and that he concurred with the prior diagnosis that Dr. Patrick could no longer perform
GI procedures full-time.
In August 2019, Reliance notified Dr. Patrick by letter that the claim decision was
being upheld, because a review of her medical condition by a third party found she was
indeed qualified to perform the duties of her regular occupation—her regular occupation
being Internal Medicine Specialist, not Gastroenterologist.
Reliance’s characterization of Dr. Patrick as an Internal Medicine Specialist—and
specifically, termination of benefits based on that characterization—form the basis of this
appeal.
II.
The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 29 U.S.C. §§
1001-1461. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and § 1292(a)(1).
The District Court reviews a challenge to a denial of benefits under ERISA using
the abuse of discretion (or arbitrary and capricious) standard when the plan administrator
maintains discretionary authority over plan interpretation and eligibility determinations.
Viera v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 413 (3d Cir. 2011). Reliance maintains
such discretionary authority. Under the arbitrary and capricious standard, the Court may
4
overturn an administrator’s denial of benefits if “it is ‘without reason, unsupported by
substantial evidence or erroneous as a matter of law.’” Miller v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 632
F.3d 837, 845 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Abnathya v. Hoffmann–La Roche, Inc., 2 F.3d 40,
45 (3d Cir. 1993)). The Court should defer to the administrator’s reasonable
interpretation of ambiguous plan language; however, the administrator’s interpretation
may not conflict with the plain language of the plan. Fleisher v. Standard Ins. Co., 679
F.3d 116, 121 (3d Cir. 2012); Lasser v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 344 F.2d 381,
385-86 (3d Cir. 2003). We review the District Court’s grant of summary judgment de
novo. Miller, 632 F.3d at 844.
III.
Reliance’s argument, at its core, is as follows: Reliance reasonably interpreted
“Regular Occupation” to mean only occupations found in the DOT, as those are the only
occupations that exist in the national economy. Reliance argues that because
Gastroenterologist is not a listing in the DOT, it was reasonable for Reliance to assign Dr.
Patrick the “Regular Occupation” of Internal Medicine Specialist, even though she is
neither practicing as an Internal Medicine Specialist nor is she even board certified to
practice internal medicine. And finally, Reliance contends that because Dr. Patrick’s
shoulder injury only impacts her ability to perform endoscopies and similar procedures
performed by Gastroenterologists—not her ability to perform the tasks required of an
Internal Medicine Specialist—it was reasonable for Reliance to find that she is neither
Partially nor Totally Disabled under the policy and thus no longer qualifies for disability
benefits.
5
The District Court granted summary judgment to Dr. Patrick because it found the
above determinations and subsequent termination of benefits “unreasonable, unsupported
by substantial record evidence, and in conflict with the policy’s unambiguous terms.”
App. 29. We agree.
The District Court reasoned that Reliance’s determination that Dr. Patrick’s
“Regular Occupation” is that of an Internal Medicine Specialist is “contrary to the plan’s
plain language” and should be rejected. Lasser, 344 F.2d at 385. The term “Regular
Occupation” is defined by the Policy as follows:
“Regular Occupation” means the occupation the Insured is routinely
performing when Total Disability begins. We will look at the insured’s
occupation as it is normally performed in the national economy, and not the
unique duties performed for a specific employer or in a specific locale.
App. 76 (emphasis added). As the District Court found, the record is replete with
evidence that Dr. Patrick is a Gastroenterologist: Dr. Patrick’s training, employment
history, board certification, and even Reliance’s records of Dr. Patrick’s disability
support the finding that occupation she routinely performed when her Total Disability
began was that of a Gastroenterologist. 1 Indeed, at the time Reliance began paying Dr.
Patrick benefits, she was not even board-certified to practice internal medicine. The
District Court concluded that neither the plain language of the Policy nor the record
1
In prior ERISA litigation with Dr. Patrick, Dr. Patrick was described as a
Gastroenterologist. Reliance never objected to this characterization.
6
evidence supports Reliance’s determination that Dr. Patrick’s Regular Occupation was
that of an Internal Medicine Specialist. 2
Reliance’s reasoning that the inclusion of “national economy” language in the
Policy restricts “Regular Occupations” to those in the DOT is unreasonable and
untenable. Reliance correctly states that we have recognized the DOT as a valuable tool
when evaluating disability claims. E.g., Boone v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 203, 206 (3d Cir.
2003); Burns v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 113, 119 (3d Cir. 2002). However, neither Boone nor
Burns involved ERISA, and in both the DOT is used simply as a resource to understand
which jobs exist that the social security claimant can perform. Boone, 353 F.3d at 206;
Burns, 312 F.3d at 119. The DOT does not function as an exclusive list of jobs that exist
in the national economy, and it is unreasonable to treat it as such. Lasser, 344 F.3d at
387 n.5 (“[T]he DOT’s silence . . . makes the DOT unhelpful and thus, to the extent that
Reliance’s conclusion is based on the DOT’s definition . . . that conclusion is
unreasonable.”). As the District Court rightly observed, “Reliance cites, and I know of,
no ERISA provision or court decision that precludes the recognition of an occupation not
2
Reliance purports that the Court must accept the “one expert vocational opinion” in the
record and find it reasonable that Reliance classified Dr. Patrick as an Internal Medicine
Specialist, as “there is no contrary opinion in the record.” Br. of Appellant 29-30. The
expert vocational opinion, however, is based solely on the DOT definitions and
demonstrates no consideration of the record before it at the time, which included Dr.
Patrick’s actual work responsibilities and job description. Further, Reliance
misrepresents the record here, which contains myriad evidence of Dr. Patrick’s
occupation as Gastroenterologist.
7
listed in the DOT. And it offers, and I can think of, no reason why such a rule should
exist.” App. 33.
Both parties rely heavily on Lasser, so we discuss that opinion here. In Lasser,
Reliance similarly denied benefits to a doctor after attempting to recharacterize his
occupation, in part because DOT did not list “Orthopedic Surgeon” as an occupation.
Lasser, 344 F.3d at 387 n.5. The Lasser Court expressly rejected this approach, finding
that Reliance’s termination of benefits was arbitrary and capricious. Id. at 392. Reliance
urges that this case is distinguishable from Lasser because here, Dr. Patrick’s Policy
defines Regular Occupation to be “as it is normally performed in the national economy,”
App. 76, whereas the policy at issue in Lasser did not define Regular Occupation at all.
But here, the District Court’s determination that the decision to cease paying benefits was
arbitrary and capricious was based in part on the fact that Reliance determined that
Gastroenterologist is not an occupation in and of itself, solely because Gastroenterologist
is absent from the DOT. We agree with the District Court that this notion is “ridiculous.”
App. 33. Reliance cannot escape the obvious conclusion that Dr. Patrick is a
Gastroenterologist by relying on the “national economy” language in the Policy.
Reliance’s other challenges fail as well. Reliance argues that the District Court
improperly found in favor of Dr. Patrick based on Reliance’s past practices. Then,
Reliance points to one footnote in the District Court’s opinion to argue that the District
Court improperly cherry-picked from the Policy to grant Dr. Patrick summary judgment.
Neither argument persuades us. As we describe above, the District Court properly relied
primarily upon the plain language of the Policy and the record evidence.
8
Finally, Reliance does not challenge the District Court’s award of fees and costs
on any basis other than that the Court erred in granting summary judgment. Because we
agree with the District Court that summary judgment in favor of Dr. Patrick was proper,
we will also affirm the fees and costs award.
IV.
For these reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s order.
9