Foster v. Principal Life Ins. Co., CIVIL ACTION CASE NO. 16–1270

303 F.Supp.3d 471

Amanda C. FOSTER

v.PRINCIPAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.

CIVIL ACTION CASE NO. 16–1270

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

Signed March 19, 2018

James Frederick Willeford, Reagan Levert Toledano, Willeford & Toledano, New Orleans, LA, for Amanda C. Foster.

Lisa M. Africk, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman and Dicker, LLP, New Orleans, LA, Edna S. Kersting, Pro Hac Vice; Attorney to be Noticed, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman, and Dicker, Chicago, IL, for Principal Life Insurance Company, et al.

ORDER AND REASONS

NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is Plaintiff Amanda Foster's ("Foster") "Motion for Reconsideration/New Trial/and/or to Amend or Alter Judgment Under Rule 59."¹ This is an action for review of the denial of long-term disability benefits and life insurance waiver of premium benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. ("ERISA"). The parties, Foster and Defendant Principal Life Insurance Company ("Principal"), filed cross motions for judgment on the administrative record.² On November 21, 2017, the Court entered judgment in favor of Principal.³ Foster seeks reconsideration under Rule 59(e). Having considered the motion, the memoranda in support and opposition, the record, and the applicable law, the Court will deny Foster's motion.

I. Background

On July 8, 2013, Foster filed a claim for long-term disability ("LTD") benefits pursuant to a Group Policy issued by Principal, alleging that she was "unable to practice law due to pain of headaches" as of March 8, 2013.⁴ On February 3, 2016, after multiple administrative hearings, Principal denied her claim and informed Foster that all administrative appeal options had been exhausted.⁵

On February 12, 2016, Foster filed a complaint in this Court, alleging that she was wrongfully denied ERISA disability benefits.⁶ On February 13, 2017, Foster and Principal filed cross motions for judgment on the administrative record.⁷ On July 13, 2017, and September 19, 2017, Foster underwent neurostimulator implant procedures.⁸ On November 21, 2017, this Court granted Principal's motion for judgment as a matter of law and entered judgment in favor of Principal.⁹

On December 19, 2017, Foster filed the instant motion for reconsideration asserting that the Court should consider the newly discovered evidence.¹⁰ On January 9, 2018, Principal filed a response in opposition to Foster's motion.¹¹ On January 25, 2018, with leave of Court, Foster filed a reply brief.¹² Oral argument regarding the motion for reconsideration was held on January 24, 2018.¹³ At oral argument, the Court granted the parties leave to file supplemental briefing regarding Plaintiff's argument that the Court's judgment contains manifest errors of law and fact.¹⁴ On February 1, 2018, Foster filed a supplemental memorandum to the motion for reconsideration.¹⁵ On February 22, 2018, Principal filed a reply memorandum in response to Foster's supplemental memorandum.¹⁶

II. Parties' Arguments

A. Foster's Arguments in Support of the Motion for Reconsideration; Alleged New Evidence

Foster asserts that "the Court should consider the attached newly discovered evidence that was not available when this matter was tried."¹⁷ Foster asserts that the Court's November 21, 2017 decision "was made in light of the medical records, opinions from various treating doctors, an IME doctor, and doctors hired by Principal."¹⁸ Therefore, Foster argues that "evidence bearing on the severity of her condition is critical in helping the Court reach the correct decision and to avoid manifest injustice."¹⁹

Specifically, Foster asserts that the Court should consider updated medical records demonstrating that she recently underwent a neurostimulator implant to "help control her headaches."²⁰ According to Foster, the device was inserted "into her left breast" and "contains four leads that run over her shoulder, up her cervical, and into the base of her skull."²¹ Foster avers that no one would undergo this invasive procedure "unless they were actually suffering from debilitating headaches."²² Thus, Foster concludes that "[t]he attached newly discovered evidence should be considered in order to prevent manifest injustice."²³

B. Principal's Arguments in Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration; Evidence Available When Decision was Rendered

Principal first asserts that reconsideration is not warranted because Foster's motion does not present newly discovered evidence, as "the medical treatment underlying Foster's motion was rendered and received in July and September 2017."²⁴ Principal argues that "[a]s the Court's judgment was not entered until November 21, 2017, Foster had ample time to attempt to supplement the record and present this additional information to the Court prior to the judgment on the parties' cross-motions."²⁵ Moreover, Principal asserts that continued medical treatment is "likely inherent" in disability cases.²⁶ Principal further argues, "If a plaintiff were able to question a court's determination based on such continued treatment evidence, no court decision in a disability case would ever be final but always subject to revisions based on subsequent treatment records."²⁷

Alternatively, even if the medical records were newly discovered evidence, Principal contends that reconsideration is not warranted.²⁸ Principal notes that the Court's review of the administrative decision is subject to an arbitrary and capricious standard of review and limited to consideration of the record before the claims administrator.²⁹ Principal further states that there are only two exceptions to this rule, evidence interpreting the plan or evidence explaining medical terms and procedures, and neither of the exceptions apply here.³⁰

C. Foster's Reply Memorandum in Further Support of the Motion for Reconsideration

In the reply brief, Foster asserts that the medical records were not available when the cross motions for judgment on the pleadings were submitted to the Court on March 15, 2017.³¹ Moreover, Foster contends that the Court may consider evidence that was not part of the administrative record under special circumstances.³² In support of this assertion, Foster cites a Tenth Circuit case, Hall v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America , which she asserts held that the court could consider evidence of additional surgeries that were outside the administrative record.³³ Foster notes that the benefit denial in Hall was considered under a de novo standard of review, whereas this case is subject to an arbitrary and capricious standard of review.³⁴ Nevertheless, Foster asserts that Hall provides guidance as to when evidence outside the administrative record should be considered.³⁵

Moreover, Foster contends that the evidence is admissible because it "helps the Court understand the medical terminology associated with migraine disorder as well as the practice related to the diagnosis and treatment of migraine disorder."³⁶ Foster asserts that "[t]he Court seems to have been influenced by opinions of two of Principal's reviewing doctors who opined that Foster was suffering from anxiety and depression, and/or her headache disorder was opioid induced or psychosomatic, rather than a headache disorder."³⁷ According to Foster, "[t]he proffered evidence helps the Court understand the medical terminology and practice related to treatment of Foster's headache disorder in that it demonstrates that her headaches are indeed real and severe, as no one elects to have wires surgically implanted inside their body unless they are suffering from debilitating headaches."³⁸ Alternatively, Foster notes that the Court could remand this matter to Principal for consideration of its previous decision in light of this evidence.³⁹ Finally, Foster asserts that she "is prepared to demonstrate in her appeal to the Fifth Circuit why the Court's decision contains both manifest factual and legal errors."⁴⁰

D. Foster's Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion for Reconsideration

In the supplemental briefing, Foster asserts that the Court's November 21, 2017 judgment in favor of Principal contains manifest errors of law and fact.⁴¹ First, Foster argues that the Court erred in finding both that Foster failed to provide the specific duties of her job to Principal and that Principal considered the actual duties of her job when analyzing her claim.⁴² Foster alleges that the administrative record contains evidence of the specific job requirements of a healthcare attorney.⁴³ Specifically, Foster contends that her employer provided a job description and Foster herself listed her job duties on her disability application.⁴⁴

Moreover, Foster contends that contrary to the Court's finding, her treating physicians and two of Principal's physicians, determined that Foster's migraine disorder precluded her from performing the material duties of her job, including "meeting deadlines, handling stress, unpredictability of absences, prolonged computer use, prolonged light exposure, intellectual challenges of handling complex situations, etc."⁴⁵ By contrast, Foster avers that neither Principal nor its reviewing doctors "opined on [Foster's] ability to perform the actual job duties of a healthcare attorney."⁴⁶ Foster argues that Principal simply asked its reviewing doctors if they believed Foster could perform a sedentary job on a fulltime basis, which she asserts was insufficient under an "own occupation" policy.⁴⁷ Furthermore, Foster avers that stress, a trigger for her headaches, was never addressed by Principal or the reviewing doctors.⁴⁸ Similarly, Foster contends that Principle abused its discretion by failing to consider her medical condition in light of the intellectually challenging job demands.⁴⁹ Therefore, Foster believes that Principal's failure to analyze her medical condition in light of the specific job demands amounted to an abuse of...