Tykeson v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, 2:15-cv-00960-SJO (AGRx). (2016)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20160524684
Visitors: 5
Filed: May 23, 2016
Latest Update: May 23, 2016
Summary: JUDGMENT FOLLOWING TRIAL S. JAMES OTERO , District Judge . In this action governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), following the submission of trial briefing by Plaintiff Eric Tykeson ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Aetna Life Insurance Company ("Defendant"), this Court found this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and vacated the hearing set for February 22, 2016 and the trial set for February 23, 2016. ( See Docket No. 38.) After consider
Summary: JUDGMENT FOLLOWING TRIAL S. JAMES OTERO , District Judge . In this action governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), following the submission of trial briefing by Plaintiff Eric Tykeson ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Aetna Life Insurance Company ("Defendant"), this Court found this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and vacated the hearing set for February 22, 2016 and the trial set for February 23, 2016. ( See Docket No. 38.) After consideri..
More
JUDGMENT FOLLOWING TRIAL
S. JAMES OTERO, District Judge.
In this action governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), following the submission of trial briefing by Plaintiff Eric Tykeson ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Aetna Life Insurance Company ("Defendant"), this Court found this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and vacated the hearing set for February 22, 2016 and the trial set for February 23, 2016. (See Docket No. 38.)
After considering the trial briefing submitted by the parties, all accompanying filings, the Administrative Record lodged under seal by Defendant and all other matters presented to the Court, for all of the reasons presented in the "Order Finding for Plaintiff" (Docket No. 39), the full text of which in incorporated herein, judgment is issued in favor of Plaintiff.
Based on the evidence before the Court, Plaintiff is therefore entitled to $113,000.00, as full reimbursement for money that was paid for the medically necessary treatment for A.T. Plaintiff is also entitled to pre-judgment interest at the statutorily designated rate. Under ERISA, as the prevailing party, Plaintiff is also entitled to attorneys' fees and costs, which will be the subject of a separate judgment.
Source: Leagle
