Filed: Sep. 25, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: Becker College.1, Although this circuit has not decided whether a jury trial, might be available in an ERISA case, see Liston v. Unum Corp., Officer Severance Plan, 330 F.3d 19, 24 n.4 (1st Cir.reasoned, and supported by substantial evidence in the record.court in favor of Paul Revere is affirmed.
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 02-2498
HALUK BEKIROGLU,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
THE PAUL REVERE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Chief Judge,
Howard, Circuit Judge,
DiClerico,* District Judge.
Stephen L. Raymond for appellant.
Joseph M. Hamilton, with whom Elizabeth L.B. Greene and
Mirick, O’Connell, DeMallie & Lougee, LLP were on brief for
appellee.
September 25, 2003
*
Of the District of New Hampshire, sitting by designation.
Per Curiam. This appeal arises under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §
1132(a)(1)(B). The district court granted summary judgment in
favor of the plan administrator’s decision denying long term
disability benefits to Professor Haluk Bekiroglu. The district
court concluded that while the decision was debatable it was not
arbitrary or capricious. In support of that conclusion, the
district court held that the medical and surveillance evidence in
the record supported the decision that Professor Bekiroglu was
capable of the light duty work required by his position as Business
Division Director and Professor of Management and Business at
Becker College. We affirm essentially for the reasons given by the
district court in the memorandum and order dated October 16, 2002,
adding only the following comments.
In a non-jury case, when, as here, the parties submit
cross motions for judgment on an agreed record, the case is deemed
to be submitted as stated.1 See Garcia-Ayala v. Lederle
Parenterals, Inc., 212 F.3d 638, 643-44 (1st Cir. 2000). Instead
of drawing inferences in favor of each nonmoving party, as would
ordinarily be done in considering cross motions for summary
judgment, the court must determine the appropriate inferences to be
drawn from the factual record.
Id. Professor Bekiroglu can
prevail on appeal "only if he shows that the district court’s
1
Although this circuit has not decided whether a jury trial
might be available in an ERISA case, see Liston v. Unum Corp.
Officer Severance Plan, 330 F.3d 19, 24 n.4 (1st Cir. 2003), here
no request was made for a jury trial.
-2-
factual determinations are clearly erroneous or if the district
court made an error of law." Watson v. Deaconess Waltham Hosp.,
298 F.3d 102, 108 (1st Cir. 2002).
It is undisputed that the deferential ERISA standard
applies. The plan administrator’s decision will be reversed only
if the "eligibility determination was unreasonable in light of the
information available to it." Cook v. Liberty Life Assurance Co.,
320 F.3d 11, 19 (1st Cir. 2003). The eligibility determination
must be upheld "if it was within [the insurer’s] authority,
reasoned, and supported by substantial evidence in the record."
Doyle v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co.,
144 F.3d 181, 184 (1st Cir.
1998). "The existence of contrary evidence does not necessarily
render [the insurer’s] decision arbitrary." Boardman v. Prudential
Ins. Co.,
337 F.3d 9, 15 (1st Cir. 2003).
Professor Bekiroglu contends that the district court
erred in evaluating the record evidence and, in particular, he
urges a different interpretation of his treating physician’s
opinion. He concedes that Dr. Johnson checked the "yes" box in
question seven of the attending physician’s statement, indicating
that he was released for work in his occupation. He argues,
however, that marking the "yes" box was a mistake and that Dr.
Johnson intended to support his application for long-term
disability benefits.
Professor Bekiroglu points to Dr. Johnson’s statement,
confirmed in her treating notes, that she would be happy to fill
out medical forms for his disability application. He contends that
-3-
Dr. Johnson’s statement demonstrates that she intended to help his
application so that her responses on the attending physician’s
statement should be construed in his favor. Professor Bekiroglu
also points to Dr. Johnson’s narrative answer to the remainder of
question seven, following the "yes" box, which asked her to explain
her patient’s restrictions if he were medically unable to work at
that time. Dr. Johnson wrote that certain symptoms made it very
difficult for Professor Bekiroglu to "function at a full level."
Taken as a whole, Dr. Johnson’s opinion consistently
indicated that Professor Bekiroglu was able to work at his
occupation, albeit at a somewhat reduced exertional level. Whether
Dr. Johnson "happily" agreed to complete forms in support of his
application carries little persuasive weight. Dr. Johnson’s
specificity about Professor Bekiroglu’s condition reveals that
although she thought he would have difficulty performing at a full
level, he would only have a slight limitation in his physical
activity. The surveillance conducted by Paul Revere confirms that
conclusion, as does Dr. Pollak’s opinion.
While the record evidence is open to different
interpretations, as the district court noted, given the deferential
standard of review Professor Bekiroglu has not shown that the
district court’s factual determinations were clearly erroneous.
Even if the appeal were reviewed de novo, we would come to the same
result. Therefore, the summary judgment granted by the district
court in favor of Paul Revere is affirmed.
-4-
