Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-3_04-cv-03024/USCOURTS-arwd-3_04-cv-03024-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION

FERN K. RICHMOND PLAINTIFF

V. Civil No. 04-3024

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO., et al. DEFENDANTS 

O R D E R

Now on this 5th day of October, 2005, comes on to be

considered plaintiff’s Motion for Remand (Docs. 18 & 19). The

Court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds and orders as

follows with respect thereto:

1. On September 6, 2005, this Court entered an Order

granting Defendants’ Motion to Limit Evidence to Administrative

Record (Doc. 14) and ordering the parties to file their briefs on

the merits of this case.

2. Instead of filing her brief on the merits of this

matter, the plaintiff filed a Motion for Remand (Docs. 18 & 19)

seeking to remand this action, brought pursuant to the provisions

of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”),

29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., to the plan administrator for further

consideration. The plaintiff argues that the matter should be

remanded to the plan administrator for a decision on the “entire

medical record.” 

3. The defendants argue that plaintiff’s motion for remand

is simply another attempt by plaintiff to supplement the

Case 3:04-cv-03024-JLH Document 21 Filed 10/05/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
administrative record with additional medical evidence she failed

to submit, without good cause, during the administrative process.

4. As set forth in this Court’s previous Order, this

Court’s function is to conduct a review of the record that was

before the administrator of the employee benefit plan when the

claim was denied. See Farfalla v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 324

F.3d 971, 974 -975 (8 Cir. 2003). Without good cause, the

th

plaintiff will not be able to supplement the record with

documents not previously presented to the plan administrator.

See Brown v. Seitz Foods, Inc., 140 F.3d 1198, 1200 -1201 (8th

Cir. 1998). And, while this Court may have the authority, under

certain circumstances, to remand the matter to the plan

administrator if it believes the administrator lacked adequate

evidence to make a decision, Davidson v. Prudential Ins. Co. of

America, 953 F.2d 1093 (8 Cir. 1992), such a determination would

th

be more properly made following briefing by the parties on the

merits of this case. 

5. Therefore, plaintiff’s Motion for Remand (Docs. 18 &

19) is DENIED. And the parties are, yet again, ordered to file

briefs on the merits of this case. Plaintiff shall have 14 days

from entry of this order to file his brief and defendants shall

have 14 days thereafter to file their brief. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of October 2005. 

/s/Jimm Larry Hendren

JIMM LARRY HENDREN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-03024-JLH Document 21 Filed 10/05/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>