Chandhok v. Companion Life Ins. Co.

555 F.Supp.3d 1092

Paul CHANDHOK, Plaintiff,

v.COMPANION LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

No. CIV 19-0362 JB/JFR

United States District Court, D. New Mexico.

Filed August 17, 2021

James Rawley, James Rawley Law Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorney for the Plaintiff.

Joshua Bachrach, Scott D. Sweeney, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for the Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JAMES O. BROWNING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, filed September 4, 2020 (Doc. 31)("Motion"). The Court held a hearing on October 5, 2020. See Clerk's Minutes at 1, filed Sept. 29, 2020 (Doc. 36). The primary issue is whether the Court misapprehended the facts or Defendant Companion Life Insurance Company's ("Companion Life") position in reaching the conclusion that Companion Life's determination that Plaintiff Paul Chandhok's disability ended on July 5, 2016, was arbitrary and capricious, and thus, under rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, whether the Court should amend its conclusion in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, Chandhok v. Companion Life Ins. Co., 478 F. Supp. 3d 1157 (D.N.M. 2020) (Browning, J.), filed August 13, 2020 (Doc. 30)(" MOO"). Specifically, the issue is whether the Court misapprehended Companion Life's interpretation of when policy coverage terminates, and thus, what medical evidence is appropriate to consider when considering an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) benefits appeal. See Motion at 4-5. The Court concludes that Companion Life's Motion only raises arguments and presents evidence that could have been raised before judgment, and thus, is rearguing an issue the Court addressed previously. Specifically, the Court concludes that Companion Life's policy interpretation argument does not raise any new argument or present new evidence that was not available before the entry of final judgment. The Court, therefore, declines to alter or amend the MOO and denies the Motion.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

As it has done in the past, the Court recites the factual background as stated in its MOO, as neither party has objected to the Court's recitation of facts in the MOO. The footnotes associated with the quoted text are also quoted in full from the MOO. See MOO, 478 F. Supp. 3d at 1161-65.

Companion Life issued the Group Long Term Disability Policy ("Policy") to Melloy Brothers Enterprises, an Albuquerque, New Mexico-based car dealership. See Memorandum of Law in Support of Companion Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment ¶ 1, at 2, filed January 10, 2020 (Doc. 22-1)("Memo.")(citing Group Long Term Disability Insurance Policy (undated), in the Administrative Record at 188-219, filed February 6, 2020 (Doc. 27)("A.R.")). The Policy covers "[a]ll Full-time Active Employees.... Full-time employment means the employee must work at least 30 hours per week." See Memo. ¶ 2, at 2 (citing Policy at 14, 23 (A.R. at 198, 207)). Chandhok was an Assistant Sales Manager at Melloy Brothers Enterprises, Inc., an Albuquerque, New Mexico-based car dealership. See Appellant's Brief in Chief at 5, filed January 3, 2020 (Doc. 21)("Brief"); Application for Group Life, AD&D (undated)(A.R. at 220); Notification of Appeal (Aug. 25, 2017)(A.R. at 1408). As part of his job, Chandhok first became insured under the Policy on June 1, 2015. See Memo. ¶ 3, at 2 (citing Application for Long Term Disability Income Benefits at 1 (dated June 23, 2016)(A.R. at 2742)("Application")). His last day of work at Melloy Brothers was March 4, 2016. See Memo. ¶ 4, at 2 (citing Application at 4 (A.R. at 2745)). Chandhok claimed disability on March 5, 2016. See Memo. ¶ 4, at 2 (Application at 4 (A.R. at 2745)).

The Policy states that disability benefits are payable when the insureds: " ‘(1) become Disabled while insured under The Policy; (2) are Disabled through the Elimination Period; (3) remain Disabled beyond the Elimination Period; and (4) submit Proof of Loss to Us.’ " Memo. ¶ 5, at 2-3 (quoting Policy at 27 (A.R. at 211)). One of the requirements of proving disability under the Policy is that the insured is unable to perform " ‘one or more of the Essential Duties of ... Your Occupation for the 24 months following the Elimination period, and as a result Your Current Monthly Earnings are less than 80% of Your indexed Pre-disability Earnings.’ " Memo. ¶ 6, at 3 (quoting Policy at 17 (A.R. at 201)). To cover a disability, the Policy requires that the disability result from " ‘accidental bodily injury,’ " " ‘Sickness,’ " " ‘Mental Illness,’ " " ‘Substance Abuse,’ " or " ‘pregnancy.’ "

Memo. ¶ 7, at 3 (quoting Policy at 17 (A.R. at 201)). The Policy terminates coverage on the earliest of

the date The Policy terminates; the date The Policy no longer insures Your class; the date premium payment is due but not paid by the Employer; the last day of the period for which You make any required premium contribution; the last day of the month or on next following the month in which Your Employer terminates Your employment; the date You cease to be a Full-time Active Employee in an eligible class for any reason; unless coverage is extended under the Continuation Provisions.

Memo. ¶ 8, at 3-4 (quoting Policy at 25 (A.R. at 209)). On June 24, 2015, months before Chandhok's asserted injury, Dr. Michael Garcia, Chandhok's primary care physician, examined Chandhok and found " ‘no particular injury but several months of medial left knee pain.’ " Brief at 10 (quoting Dr. Garcia Notes at 3 (dated June 24, 2015)(A.R. at 825)).

Chandhok says that he injured himself on January 9, 2016, when he caught his right heel in a pothole and fell on his left knee. See Memo. ¶ 9, at 4 (citing Application at 4 (A.R. at 2745)); First Medical Review Form at 2 (dated Sept. 15, 2016)(A.R. at 2553). After this incident, he experienced "severe pain in left side of body (tip of toe), right heel spur & left knee bruised and causing pain to lower back/leg/heel/spine." Memo. ¶ 10, at 4 (citing Application at 3 (A.R. at 2744)). Chandhok worked full time between his fall and March 4, 2016, and did not seek medical attention until one week after he stopped working. See Memo. ¶ 13, at 4 (citing Application at 4 (A.R. at 2745)). Chandhok said on his application for disability benefits that, because seventy to ninety percent of his job requires walking, his job is impossible to do with an injured knee and bruised heel. See Memo. ¶ 11, at 4 (citing Application at 4 (A.R. at 2745)). Chandhok has stated that his general manager saw him walking with a limp and suggested that he take time off work. See Memo. ¶ 14, at 5 (citing First Letter from Sanda Kaserman to James Rawley at 3 (dated Aug. 25, 2017)(A.R. at 280)("First Letter")). A manager at Melloy Brothers questioned the validity of Chandhok's disability claim. See Memo. ¶ 14, at 5 (citing First Letter at 3 (A.R. at 280)); Marc Scully Notes at 1 (dated July 22, 2016)(A.R. at 187).

On March 10, 2016, Chandhok underwent a CT Scan after complaining about weakness and numbness in his extremities lasting three days. See Memo. ¶ 15, at 5 (citing Notes from Lovelace Hospital at 15, 18 (dated July 27, 2017)(A.R. at 455, 458)). The resulting preliminary radiological report noted that the results were unremarkable. See Memo. ¶ 15, at 5 (citing Notes from Lovelace Hospital at 15 (A.R. at 455)). The next day, on March 11, 2016, Chandhok went to an Emergency Room for numbness in his left arm, shoulder, and leg. See Memo. ¶ 16, at 5 (citing Lovelace Hospital Treatment Notes at 1-5 (A.R. at 85-89)); Brief at 11. He reported then that his symptoms started one week earlier and " ‘start randomly [and] go away randomly.’ " Memo. ¶ 17, at 5 (quoting Lovelace Hospital Treatment Notes at 3 (A.R. at 87))(alteration in Memo.). The ER physician thought that Chandhok's symptoms were " ‘most likely neuropathy¹ that could be due to cervical root impingement or elbow impingement of the nerve by the way that that the patient describes,’ " but " ‘a transient ischemic attack² is also in the differential,’ " and he recommended an MRI.³ Memo. ¶ 18, at 5 (quoting Lovelace Hospital Treatment Notes at 4 (A.R. at 88)). The ER records document Chandhok's hypertension history, but his blood pressure was normal on that day. See Memo. ¶ 19, at 5 (citing Lovelace Hospital Treatment Notes at 4 (A.R. at 88)). Chandhok declined an MRI, because he is claustrophobic. See Memo. ¶ 20, at 5 (citing Lovelace Hospital Treatment Notes at 1 (A.R. at 85)). He also declined overnight admission at the hospital. See Memo. ¶ 21, at 5 (citing Lovelace Hospital Treatment Notes at 1, 5 (A.R. at 85, 89)).

Chandhok consulted with Dr. Floyd Pacheco, a podiatry specialist at New Mexico Orthopedics, on March 15, 2016, for right foot pain. See Memo. ¶ 22, at 6 (citing Dr. Pacheco Treatment Notes at 1-3 (dated August 19, 2016)(A.R. at 37-39); Lovelace Hospital Treatment Notes at 2 (A.R. at 86)); Brief at 12. Chandhok told Dr. Pacheco that his symptoms started three weeks earlier but that he did not recall a specific injury causing his pain. See Memo. ¶ 23, at 6 (citing Dr. Pacheco Treatment Notes at 1 (A.R. at 37)). Chandhok described his pain as aching and severe, said his pain level was a nine out of ten, and said that his pain is worst when standing and walking. See Brief at 12; Dr. Pacheco Treatment Notes at 1 (A.R. at 37). Chandhok told Dr. Pacheco that he walks long hours at work. See Brief at 12; Dr. Pacheco Treatment Notes at 1 (A.R. at 37). Dr. Pacheco diagnosed Chandhok with plantar fasciitis^[4] and injected his right tendon sheath with medication. See Memo. ¶ 24, at 6 (citing Dr. Pacheco Treatment Notes at 2-3 (A.R. at 38-39)); Brief at 12. Dr. Pacheco instructed Chandhok not to work for two weeks. See Memo. ¶ 25, at 6 (citing Letter from Dr. Pacheco at 1 (dated March 15, 2016)(A.R. at 179)).

On March 18, 2016, Dr. Garcia examined Chandhok. See Memo. ¶ 27, at 6 (citing March 18 Dr.

...