Raymond Pollock v. Northrop Grumman Health Plan , 537 F. App'x 689 ( 2013 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 07 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
RAYMOND D. POLLOK, an individual, No. 11-56764
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-07006-JST-PJW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NORTHROP GRUMMAN HEALTH
PLAN, an employee benefit plan,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Josephine Staton Tucker, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 10, 2013
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW, BYBEE, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Raymond Pollok appeals from the district court’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law following a bench trial in his claim for long-term disability
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
benefits under an insurance policy governed by ERISA. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the district court.
The district court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous. See
Pannebecker v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, 542 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th
Cir. 2008). It was not “illogical, implausible, or without support . . . in the record”
for the district court to find that: (1) the Northrop Grumman Health Plan (“the
Plan”) was in effect and available to Pollok when he became disabled; (2) there
was only one “Benefits Online” website containing the Summary Plan Description
(“SPD”); (3) the SPD vested discretionary authority in Unum as the Plan’s
administrator; and (4) the SPD provided that benefits payments could be offset
against certain benefits received from other sources. See United States v. Hinkson,
585 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).
Nor were the district court’s legal conclusions in error. See Pannebecker,
542 F.3d at 1217. The Plan vested discretionary authority in the Plan
administrator, and therefore it was proper for the district court to review the
benefits determination for abuse of discretion. See Abatie v. Alta Health & Life
Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 969 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc). The district court also
properly concluded that Pollok’s benefits payments could be offset against certain
benefits received from other sources. The district court did not improperly place
2
the burden on Pollok to show that the Plan lacked offset provisions. See Zavora v.
Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 145 F.3d 1118, 1120 & n.2 (9th Cir. 1998) (explaining
that the burden of establishing the existence and terms of an ERISA plan is on the
insurer).
AFFIRMED.
3