GORDON v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-04-27No. No. 19-17452

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of MetLife, finding that the record supported the conclusion that Gordon was not disabled under the terms of the plan.

Robert Gordon appealed a district court's decision upholding MetLife's denial of his application for long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed plan. The district court had conducted a de novo review of MetLife's administrative decision, and this court reviewed the district court's factual findings for clear error. The appellate court found no clear error in the district court's determination that Gordon did not meet the plan's definition of disability, which required that he be unable to work in his own occupation for any employer in his local area during the relevant period.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether Gordon satisfied the plan's definition of disability
Whether Gordon was unable to work at his own occupation for any employer in his local economy
Standard of review for district court factual findings in ERISA benefit denial cases

Procedural posture

Gordon appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for MetLife in an ERISA long-term disability benefits denial case.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Stanley Gordon, proceeding pro se, appeals the district courts summary judgment for Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) following MetLifes denial of Gordons application for long-term disability benefits under a plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Where, as here, the district court conducted a de novo review of an ERISA plan administrators decision, we review for clear error its findings of fact. Silver v. Exec. Car Leasing Long-Term Disability Plan, 466 F.3d 727, 732-33 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The record supports the district courts finding that Gordon was not “disabled” as defined by the plan, that is, that he was not unable to work at his own occupation for any employer in his local economy during the relevant time period. See Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242, 121 S.Ct. 1452, 149 L.Ed.2d 430 (2001) (in reviewing for clear error, an appellate court will reverse only if “on the entire evidence,” it is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed”).

We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal, including Gordons contention that the administrative record is incomplete. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.