Cassandra Hall v. AT&T Umbrella Benefit Plan No. 3
Published: Aug. 12, 2022 | Result Date: Jun. 23, 2022 | Filing Date: Oct. 9, 2020 |Case number: 20-cv-07076-JD Summary Judgment – Defense
Judge
Court
USDC Northern District of California
Attorneys
Plaintiff
James P. Keenley
(Bolt Keenley Kim LLP)
Defendant
Alison L. Macneill
(Campbell Litigation PC)
Katherine P. Gardiner
(WFBM LLP)
Stacey A. Campbell
(Campbell Litigation PC)
Facts
Cassandra Hall worked as a testing technician for AT&T and was diagnosed with "an impingement and acromioclavicular arthropathy with labral tear" in her right shoulder during her employment. Her range of motion improved significantly after two corrective surgeries in May 2017 and March 2018, as well as two rounds of physical therapy. In July 2018, Hall reported to Dr. Renbaum, who opined that she was not capable of performing her regular work activities.
As part of her employment, Hall had signed up for an AT&T Umbrella Benefit Plan No. 3 on January 1, 2018. The plan delegated administrative authority to the plan administrator, AT&T Services, Inc., who delegated that authority to Sedgewick, a third-party claims administrator. An employee was considered disabled for purpose of the benefits when they had a sickness, injury or other medical, psychiatric or psychological condition that prevents them from engaging in any occupation or employment for which they are qualified or may reasonably become qualified. AT&T approved short-term disability benefits for Hall and then approved long-term benefits beginning June 4, 2017, after the short-term benefits expired. However, AT&T denied further payments on May 1, 2019, based on a review of Hall's medical records by Dr. Heck, a physician hired by AT&T. Hall appealed the denial. The reviewing doctor, Dr. Swamy, also found that Hall was not disabled.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff alleged that defendant had accepted and paid a claim for long-term disability benefits for two years and then terminated the benefits based on an improper paper review of her medical files. In particular, plaintiff alleged that defendant unduly slighted the reports of Hall's treating physicians, Dr. Renbaum and Dr. Roth, and excessively relied on the records of the physicians advisors defendant retained, Dr. Swamy and Dr. Heck.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions.
Result
Summary judgment was granted in favor of defendant.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390