Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-18-02952/USCOURTS-ca3-18-02952-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 18-2952

_______________

GIOVANNA REICHARD,

Appellant

v. 

UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

_______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 5:17-cv-02885)

District Judge: Honorable Edward G. Smith

_______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

on September 13, 2019

Before: HARDIMAN, GREENAWAY, JR., and BIBAS, Circuit Judges

(Filed: February 24, 2020)

Case: 18-2952 Document: 56 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2020
2

_______________

OPINION*

_______________

BIBAS, Circuit Judge. 

Even if one doctor finds a patient disabled, an insurer can reasonably credit other doctors who examine her and disagree. United of Omaha Life Insurance denied Giovanna 

Reichard continued long-term disability benefits. After losing her internal appeal within 

United of Omaha, Reichard brought this suit. She sought discovery of her appeal reviewer’s

alleged conflict of interest, which the District Court denied. The District Court eventually 

granted summary judgment for United of Omaha. Reichard challenges both decisions.

We will affirm. The District Court’s discovery ruling was reasonable, so we have no 

basis to disturb it. And we cannot override the insurer’s decision to deny benefits unless

we find that it was arbitrary and capricious, a deferential standard of review. As the District 

Court held, United of Omaha’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. Most of 

the doctors who examined Reichard found that even with her physical limitations, she

could still perform sedentary or light jobs. And the report of the one doctor who found her 

totally disabled appeared to be internally inconsistent. Reichard’s objections to the insurer’s procedures do not persuade us, and the alleged conflict of interest made no difference. So the insurer’s denial of benefits was not arbitrary and capricious, and the District 

Court was correct to grant summary judgment for United of Omaha.

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, under I.O.P. 5.7, is not binding 

precedent.

Case: 18-2952 Document: 56 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2020
3

I. BACKGROUND

A. Facts

1. The insurance plan’s terms. For four years, Reichard worked as a nurse for Coordinated Health, a hospital. She suffers from headaches, arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and fibromyalgia. Eventually, because of her illnesses, she had to leave her job. As an employee, she 

was covered by Coordinated Health’s group disability-insurance plan (the Plan), administered by United of Omaha. So when she left, she started collecting disability benefits under 

the Plan. 

The Plan’s definition of “disability” shifted over time. For up to two years, Reichard 

could get long-term disability benefits if she could not do her old job and could not earn at 

least 80% of her pre-disability income. But after two years, those benefits would end unless 

her disability prevented her from doing any job “for which [she was] reasonably fitted by 

training, education, or experience” that would pay at least 60% of her pre-disability earnings within a year of going back to work. Reichard v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 331 

F. Supp. 3d 435, 443 n.5 (E.D. Pa. 2018).

2. United of Omaha grants Reichard long-term disability benefits for the first two 

years. In her initial applications for short- and long-term disability benefits, Reichard submitted reports from Dr. Mark Osterman, her gastroenterologist, and Dr. Nicole Chiappetta, 

her rheumatologist. Dr. Osterman’s report noted her arthritis symptoms and Crohn’s disease and said tentatively that she could go back to work in six months. 

Dr. Chiappetta also noted her Crohn’s disease and the pain in her knees and hip. The 

doctor found that during an eight-hour workday, Reichard could sit for six hours, walk for 

Case: 18-2952 Document: 56 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/24/2020
4

two, and stand for one. She would need frequent breaks and could not climb, lift more than 

twenty pounds, or squat for more than twenty minutes. Even though she found that Reichard was only partially impaired, Dr. Chiappetta wrote that Reichard could not work. The 

doctor did not clarify whether she meant that Reichard could not work at all or that she 

could not do her old job. 

United of Omaha granted Reichard’s application for long-term disability benefits. But 

it notified her that in two years, the Plan’s definition of “disability” would change. 

3. After two years, United of Omaha denies Reichard long-term disability benefits. To 

gauge whether Reichard was disabled under the narrower definition, United of Omaha had 

four health-care professionals review her file. Based on their assessments, it denied her 

claim for continuing benefits.

First, a United of Omaha nurse reviewed Reichard’s file and wrote a report. She found 

that Reichard’s Crohn’s disease was stable. She noted that Reichard’s depression, headaches, hip pain, and vitamin deficiencies did not impair her ability to work. She also looked 

at images of Reichard’s left knee, which had recently been replaced, and found it normal. 

The nurse concluded that Reichard could work a job that was not too taxing physically, if 

she could reposition herself and take short walks every couple of hours. 

Second, a vocational rehabilitation consultant assessed Reichard’s skills. Based on 

Reichard’s work history and medical conditions, he found that she could work as an office 

nurse, school nurse, medical insurance clerk, hospital-admitting clerk, or administrative 

clerk. All but one of those jobs would pay more than 60% of her pre-disability earnings, 

and all were available in her area.

Case: 18-2952 Document: 56 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/24/2020
5

Third, a physician reviewed Reichard’s medical records. Like the nurse, he found that 

her Crohn’s disease was stable and that she was not functionally impaired. The physician 

purported to agree with Dr. Osterman on that point, though we have no record of any such 

statement by Dr. Osterman on the date he referenced. 

Fourth, Dr. Golombek, a board-certified rheumatologist, examined Reichard, reviewed 

her records, and wrote his own report. In his report, he referred to the reports of Dr. Osterman, Dr. Chiappetta, a nurse practitioner, and the vocational rehabilitation consultant, but 

made typos in each of their names or titles. He concluded that Reichard could sit for six to 

eight hours per day and could both stand and walk for up to an hour straight.

After reviewing the four reports, United of Omaha denied Reichard’s claim. Its denial 

letter to Reichard summarized the experts’ findings and concluded that Reichard could do 

sedentary or light jobs, including the five listed by the consultant. 

4. Reichard’s internal appeal. Reichard filed an administrative appeal of the decision 

to deny her benefits. Her appeal criticized United of Omaha’s supposed use of outdated 

and incorrect information, its failure to consider her medications’ side effects, and its exclusion of some records. United of Omaha referred Reichard’s appeal to an in-house appeal 

reviewer, Dr. Thomas Reeder. Dr. Reeder, who is board certified in internal medicine, also 

served as United of Omaha’s senior vice president and medical director. 

As part of his review, Dr. Reeder analyzed Reichard’s file, including the reports of

doctors who had examined and treated her. He reviewed records from Reichard’s neurologist and orthopedist, cataloguing her headaches and knee pain. Dr. Reeder noted the medications she had been taking and their side effects, and described her knee replacement and 

Case: 18-2952 Document: 56 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/24/2020
6

improved knee condition. He also found that Dr. Chiappetta’s conclusion that Reichard 

could not work conflicted with the actual physical limitations Dr. Chiappetta had documented. While Dr. Reeder recognized Reichard’s long history of gastrointestinal issues, he 

found no evidence that she could not do light or sedentary work. 

Dr. Reeder sent letters to four of Reichard’s doctors, describing his findings and asking 

them to reply if they disagreed. Only her neurologist responded, and that doctor voiced no 

objection.

United of Omaha thus denied Reichard’s appeal. In doing so, it relied on Reichard’s 

file and medical records, Dr. Reeder’s review, and the lack of any objection from the four 

doctors to whom Dr. Reeder had sent his findings. 

5. Reichard’s Social Security benefits. At the same time, Reichard was seeking Social 

Security disability benefits. At first, the Social Security Administration denied her benefits. 

But after a hearing, it reversed course and granted them. The Social Security Administration’s notice of award was dated twelve days after United of Omaha’s letter denying her 

appeal. 

B. Procedural background

After losing her internal appeal, Reichard sued United of Omaha in federal district court 

under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), Pub. L. No. 93-

406, 88 Stat. 829. ERISA gives a cause of action to those whose insurers have denied them 

benefits under an employee benefit plan. 29 U.S.C. §§1002(7), 1132(a)(1)(B).

Reichard moved to compel discovery on Dr. Reeder’s possible conflict of interest. The 

District Court denied the motion, finding that the discovery request would 

Case: 18-2952 Document: 56 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/24/2020
7

disproportionately burden United of Omaha and disserve ERISA’s goal of resolving claims 

efficiently. It later granted summary judgment for United of Omaha on the merits and denied Reichard’s cross-motion for summary judgment. 331 F. Supp. 3d at 485.

Reichard now appeals the denial of her motion to compel discovery. She also appeals 

the denial of her summary judgment motion and the grant of summary judgment for United 

of Omaha. The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 29 U.S.C. 

§1132(e)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1291. 

We review the District Court’s denial of Reichard’s motion to compel discovery for 

abuse of discretion. Camiolo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 334 F.3d 345, 354 (3d Cir. 

2003). That means we will not disturb it unless “no reasonable person would adopt the 

district court’s view.” Stecyk v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 295 F.3d 408, 412 (3d Cir. 

2002) (quoting Oddi v. Ford Motor Co., 234 F.3d 136, 146 (3d Cir. 2000)). 

We review the District Court’s summary judgment rulings de novo. Viera v. Life Ins. 

Co. of N. Am., 642 F.3d 407, 413 (3d Cir. 2011). Because the policy delegates discretion 

to the plan administrator, our (and the District Court’s) review of the plan administrator’s 

decision is deferential. We will overturn the denial of benefits only if it was arbitrary and 

capricious, meaning that it was “without reason, unsupported by substantial evidence or 

erroneous as a matter of law.” Miller v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 632 F.3d 837, 844–45 (3d Cir. 

2011) (quoting Abnathya v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 2 F.3d 40, 45 (3d Cir. 1993)).

Case: 18-2952 Document: 56 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/24/2020
8

II. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY 

DENYING REICHARD’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

In the District Court, Reichard sought discovery on Dr. Reeder’s alleged conflict of 

interest. Dr. Reeder was the sole medical reviewer of her appeal. But he also worked as 

United of Omaha’s senior vice president. So, she argued, he had an incentive to deny benefits. She sought information about his “batting average”: the fraction of benefits denials 

he affirmed on appeal. In other words, she wanted access to other appeals for which he had 

served as the medical reviewer. Presumably, she wanted to use evidence of a high denial 

rate to show that his business-side duties were biasing his medical judgment.

The District Court’s denial of discovery was reasonable. Discovery must always be 

“proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Here, there was evidence 

that combing its databases for this information would have imposed a substantial burden 

on United of Omaha. Plus, the information’s value to Reichard would have been minimal

at best. A low reversal rate would not prove bias or a conflict of interest. Rather, Reichard 

would have to show that each of those decisions was unreasonable based on the evidence 

in each file. Doing so would require a mini-trial on each of these other appeals. Even if 

Reichard showed that, it would still not change her burden to show that on the administrative record here, the denial of her benefits claim was unsupported by substantial evidence. 

Given the high cost of producing the evidence and its minimal probative value, the District 

Court reasonably denied the motion.

Reichard emphasizes the seriousness of Dr. Reeder’s alleged bias. But the District 

Court saw the conflict of interest. It explicitly noted it and factored it into its analysis. And 

Case: 18-2952 Document: 56 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/24/2020
9

it found that Reichard did not need this discovery to show Dr. Reeder’s potential bias or 

that the bias had tainted United of Omaha’s decision in her case. That conclusion was reasonable. So the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion to compel 

discovery.

III. THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

FOR UNITED OF OMAHA

Reichard argues that the District Court should have granted summary judgment to her, 

not United of Omaha, because “[t]he evidence demonstrates that [she] is totally disabled.” 

Appellant’s Br. 43. We do not doubt the seriousness of Reichard’s many ailments and of 

the side effects of her medications. But the issue here is not whether she is sick or disabled 

in fact. Under her insurance policy, the issue is whether her sickness prevents her from 

working a job that pays 60% of the salary she earned as a registered nurse. 

After considering many doctors’ informed views, United of Omaha answered that question “no.” Under our deferential standard of review, we agree. Its conclusions rested on 

substantial evidence and its procedures were fair. So its denial was not arbitrary or capricious. 

A. Substantial evidence supports United of Omaha’s decision

Multiple doctors, including some of Reichard’s own doctors, independently found that 

Reichard could do sedentary or light work. Reichard points to no contrary physical requirement of any of the specific jobs listed by United of Omaha. Nor does she argue that they 

would not pay 60% of her former salary. Rather, she says she simply cannot work at all.

Case: 18-2952 Document: 56 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/24/2020
10

But the only medical evidence supporting her view is Dr. Chiappetta’s assessment in 

her file. No other doctor agreed. Dr. Reeder rejected that lone conclusion as inconsistent 

with Dr. Chiappetta’s own statements about Reichard’s functional capabilities. We cannot 

declare that the analyses of all the other doctors who examined her, Dr. Reeder’s conclusions, and United of Omaha’s decision relying on those findings were unreasonable or 

lacked substantial evidentiary support.

B. The procedural irregularities do not make United of Omaha’s decision 

arbitrary and capricious

United of Omaha’s process was not perfect. Reichard criticizes its flaws. Even so, we 

cannot say that its process was “without reason” or “erroneous as a matter of law.” Miller, 

632 F.3d at 845 (quoting Abnathya, 2 F.3d at 45).

1. United of Omaha’s review was full and fair. First, Reichard argues that she did not 

receive the “full and fair review” required by ERISA and Department of Labor regulations. 

Appellant’s Br. 46; see 29 U.S.C. §1133(2); 29 C.F.R. §2560.503-1(h). She objects that it 

did not use a “standardized claims procedure[]” (meaning a claims manual). Appellant’s 

Br. 46–47. And she complains that it did not tell her what she needed to submit to support 

her appeal.

No law or regulation requires insurers to adopt a claims manual. Reichard cites 29 

C.F.R. §2560.503-1(b)(5), which requires claims procedures to “contain administrative 

processes and safeguards designed to ensure and to verify that benefit claim determinations 

are made in accordance with governing plan documents and that, where appropriate, the 

plan provisions have been applied consistently.” But this regulation says nothing about 

Case: 18-2952 Document: 56 Page: 10 Date Filed: 02/24/2020
11

claims manuals. It references “plan documents,” but only to say that claims decisions must 

comply with them. Reichard alleges not that United of Omaha failed to follow existing plan 

documents, but that it should have created additional ones. The regulation imposes no such 

duty.

And though United of Omaha never told Reichard exactly what to submit, there was 

little doubt about what was required. Reichard and Omaha corresponded at length in finalizing the records to consider on appeal. As a result of those discussions, she submitted extra 

documentation. She points to no other documents that she would have included if asked. 

So we are not persuaded.

2. Dr. Golombek’s typos are immaterial. Reichard also highlights the sloppiness in Dr. 

Golombek’s report. That sloppiness does not inspire confidence. But the mistakes in 

spelling Dr. Osterman’s and Dr. Chiappetta’s names, calling Mr. Palmer “Ms. Almer,” and 

calling a nurse “Dr.” are only typographical. The same goes for Dr. Golombek’s reference 

to a May 2016 statement by Dr. Osterman that Reichard’s Crohn’s symptoms were stable.

While Dr. Osterman made no such statement on that date, his other diagnostic records can 

reasonably be read as saying so. In any case, Dr. Chiappetta also described her gastrointestinal symptoms as fairly stable. 

3. Dr. Reeder’s conflict of interest is not fatal. Reichard objects to United of Omaha’s 

reliance on the appellate review of Dr. Reeder. Because he served both as medical director 

and senior vice president, she argues that he had a structural conflict of interest. We agree 

that, as a high-ranking officer, he labored under a likely conflict of interest. But that conflict 

does not automatically invalidate United of Omaha’s decision. When reviewing a benefits 

Case: 18-2952 Document: 56 Page: 11 Date Filed: 02/24/2020
12

determination, “conflicts are but one factor among many that a reviewing judge must take 

into account.” Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 116 (2008).

In granting summary judgment to United of Omaha, the District Court took this conflict 

into account. It found “some merit to [Reichard’s] arguments” and so “weigh[ed] [the conflict] as a factor against” United of Omaha. 331 F. Supp. 3d at 482. It reviewed three other 

cases in which courts had cast doubt on Dr. Reeder’s impartiality. Id. at 482–83. And it 

criticized Dr. Reeder’s treating other physicians’ silence as agreement with his letter. Id. at 

483. But it found that this factor did not outweigh the other evidence supporting United of 

Omaha’s decision. Id. We agree.

4. United of Omaha had no reason to foresee the Social Security Administration’s later 

grant of benefits. Reichard next argues that United of Omaha should have considered the 

Social Security Administration’s decision to grant her disability benefits. But she got that 

notice after United of Omaha had denied her appeal. One can hardly blame United of 

Omaha for failing to foresee that.

Reichard responds that United of Omaha had referred her to The Advocator Group, 

which represented her before the Social Security Administration. The Advocator Group 

had notice of the award several weeks before United of Omaha denied Reichard’s appeal. 

She argues that The Advocator Group was United of Omaha’s agent, so we should impute 

its advance knowledge to United of Omaha. 

But we see no principal-agent relationship between United of Omaha and The Advocator Group. United of Omaha’s referral was not a “manifest[ation]” by the principal “that 

the agent shall act on the principal’s behalf and subject to the principal’s control,” as is

Case: 18-2952 Document: 56 Page: 12 Date Filed: 02/24/2020
13

required for an agency relationship. Restatement (Third) of Agency §1.01 (Am. Law Inst. 

2006). The Advocator Group was working for Reichard, not Omaha. Its correspondence 

with United of Omaha was limited to the amount of the overpayment she would owe to 

United of Omaha. And one can hardly fault United of Omaha for failing to consider Social 

Security benefits that it could not foresee.

5. The cumulative effect of the errors was insignificant. Finally, Reichard argues that 

all the procedural and substantive errors combined to make United of Omaha’s decision 

arbitrary and capricious. But most of her objections are baseless. The whole is little more 

than the sum of those parts. So it does not satisfy her high burden.

* * * * *

We do not doubt that Reichard suffers serious illnesses and side effects. But the issue 

here is whether she can work at any job that pays 60% of her previous salary. United of 

Omaha found that she could, and our review of its decision must be deferential. It assessed 

her functional limitations and listed five specific sedentary or light jobs that she could do.

Its decision to deny continued benefits rested on evidence from many doctors, and it reasonably disagreed with the one outlier. So while its procedures may have been imperfect, 

its ultimate decision was not unreasonable. And the District Court reasonably denied discovery on other cases involving Dr. Reeder. We will affirm. 

Case: 18-2952 Document: 56 Page: 13 Date Filed: 02/24/2020