Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00428/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00428-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Nannette Fawn Anderson, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Life Insurance Company of North America, 

Defendant.

No. CV-15-00428-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Nannette Anderson (“Anderson”) brings this action to obtain both short 

term and long term disability benefits under her policy with Defendant Life Insurance 

Company of North America (“LINA”). The parties filed trial briefs seeking the Court’s 

decision on the administrative record. (Docs. 27, 28.) After reviewing the administrative 

record and applicable law, the Court determines that Anderson fails to meet her burden of 

proof that she was not able to do sedentary work over the relevant time period and is thus 

not entitled to either short term or long term disability benefits. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

I. Anderson’s Position at HUB International Limited 

HUB International Limited (“HUB”) hired Anderson as an account manager on 

May 1, 2012. (1, 3, 605.)1

 Anderson’s essential duties as an account manager according 

to HUB’s job description included working “closely with . . . HUB personnel on all 

 

1

 Unless a different prefix is included, all record citations are referring to the LINAACL prefix filed as part of the administrative record. (Doc. 26.) 

Case 2:15-cv-00428-GMS Document 32 Filed 02/29/16 Page 1 of 28
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

aspects of client service[ and] marketing,” handling all “preparation and implementation” 

of assigned accounts, understanding clients’ insurance objectives, staying “abreast of 

changes in the insurance industry,” resolving service issues, as well as maintaining one’s 

current book of business while also developing new business. (605.) The physical 

requirements of her position as explained in HUB’s job description included being 

“regularly required to sit; use hands to finger, handle, or feel and talk or hear . . . 

occasionally lift and/or move up to 10 pounds . . . [as well as] vision abilities . . . [like] 

close vision and ability to adjust focus.” (607.) 

 As a benefit of employment, Anderson participated in HUB’s group insurance 

policy (“Plan”). (See 1; LINAASTD000006.) The Plan was funded by LINA policies. 

(LINAASTD000006; LINAAPOL000013.) LINA processed claims and made benefit 

determinations under the Plan. (LINAASTD000006; LINAAPOL000013.) The Plan 

provided short term disability (“STD”) and long term disability (“LTD”) insurance 

coverage. (LINAASTD000011; LINAAPOL000019.) The Plan was governed by the 

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), as amended, 29 U.S.C. 

§ 1001, et seq. (Docs. 27 at 2, 28 at 16.) 

II. LINA Denies Anderson’s Initial STD Claim and Affirms Its Decision on 

 Appeal 

At the time Anderson began working for HUB she was in good health and led an 

active lifestyle which included hiking and traveling. (998.) In January 2013 she began to 

experience “terrible, debilitating” headaches as well as severe neck pain. (998.) Starting 

in February 2013, she experienced problems with her speech, memory, and 

concentration. (998.) And around the same time, Anderson began having trouble 

maintaining her balance and walking. (998.) Over the month of February, her neck pain 

increased while new issues of back pain and “extreme fatigue” began. (999.) 

 Anderson first addressed these symptoms in February 2013 when she visited Dr. 

Drew Durbin, her family doctor, and complained of “upper back pain.” (1155–56.) Dr. 

Durbin noted that Anderson had endured “several weeks of constant pain in the mid back 

Case 2:15-cv-00428-GMS Document 32 Filed 02/29/16 Page 2 of 28
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

region, and . . . the neck.” (1055.) Dr. Durbin ordered x-rays of Anderson’s “cervical 

and thoracic spine[,]” and deferred any treatment until the x-ray results came back. 

(1056.) The cervical x-ray revealed moderate-to-severe “lower cervical degenerative disc 

space narrowing,” while the thoracic x-rays revealed “minimal thoracic levocurvature 

and degenerative change.” (722–23.) On March 5, 2013, Anderson followed up with Dr. 

Durbin who noted that Anderson’s neck and back pain had continued since her last visit 

and she now experienced severe diffuse headaches. (1056.) Anderson also reported 

numbness in her right arm and issues with her voice, concentration, and memory. (1056.) 

Dr. Durbin referred Anderson for an MRI/CT scan of her brain, and cervical and thoracic 

spine. (1057.) On March 11, 2013, the results from the CT scan of Anderson’s cervical 

spine showed “mild to moderate central canal narrowing,” and “neural foraminal stenosis 

. . . due to asymmetric . . . uncovertebral spurring and facet hypertrophy.” (784–85.) The 

CT scan of her thoracic spine revealed “broad-based disc protrusions” that “contribute to 

at least mild narrowing of the central canal.” (787–88.) The CT scan of Anderson’s 

brain revealed no abnormalities. (786.) 

 On March 19, 2013, Dr. Paul Gause of the Spine Institute of Arizona examined 

Anderson. (753–55.) During the visit, Anderson complained of headaches as well as 

neck, back, arm, and leg pain. (753.) Dr. Gause, analyzing the CT scans of Anderson’s 

cervical and thoracic spine, opined that “she does have some degenerative disc disease.” 

(755.) After examining Anderson’s cervical spine, Dr. Gause noted that except for some 

tenderness over certain muscles in the cervical spine, palpation seemed normal, while 

Anderson expressed pain with range of motion although her range of motion was full. 

(754.) Anderson’s chief complaint was neck pain, and Dr. Gause concluded that her 

other symptoms like arm pain and headaches were not likely connected to her neck pain. 

(755.) Dr. Gause recommended she see an ear, nose, and throat (“ENT”) specialist as 

well as a neurologist and instructed her to begin physical therapy. (755.) 

 On March 21, 2013, Dr. Christopher Lykins, an ENT specialist, wrote a letter to 

Dr. Durbin and Dr. Gause regarding his examination of Anderson. (773–74, 875.) Dr. 

Case 2:15-cv-00428-GMS Document 32 Filed 02/29/16 Page 3 of 28
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Lykins focused on Anderson’s complaints of throat, mouth, and facial numbness as well 

as the persistent hoarseness of her voice. (773.) After examining Anderson, Dr. Lykins 

noted that Anderson did have decreased sensation in her larynx, but ultimately 

determined that she was “complaining of neurologic symptoms that extend beyond the 

contributions” of her “cervical spine,” and recommended an MRI of her brain. (773.) 

Dr. Lykins also opined that Anderson’s hoarseness may be the “sequela” of her ongoing 

neurological issues; however, he did not believe the same for her symptoms of facial 

numbness and headaches. (774.) 

 Anderson’s last day at HUB was March 26, 2013. (219.) On April 1, 2013, 

Anderson first contacted LINA to initiate her short term disability (“STD”) claim. (212.) 

During that initial contact, LINA noted that Anderson complained of “having severe 

difficulty getting up and walking . . . numbness in back of neck and difficulty 

swallowing.” (212.) 

 Upon referral from Dr. Durbin, Anderson next saw Dr. Nida Laurin, a neurologist, 

on April 1, 2013. (870.) Anderson presented Dr. Laurin with a litany of symptoms 

including cognitive impediments, numbness throughout her body, trouble balancing, 

fatigue, and back pain. (870.) After examining Anderson, however, Dr. Laurin 

determined that while she does have “degenerative spine disease with some mild canal 

narrowing,” her neurological examination was otherwise “completely normal.” (871.) 

 On April 5, 2013, Anderson underwent an MRI of her brain at the instruction of 

Dr. Lykins. (782.) The imaging company distributed the radiology report to Dr. Lykins, 

Dr. Durbin, Dr. Laurin, and Dr. Gause. (782.) The report noted no abnormalities. (782.) 

 Anderson admitted herself to the Mayo Clinic on April 16, 2013. (701.) 

Anderson complained primarily of shortness of breath, chest pain, and difficulty talking, 

but she also complained of migratory pain, generalized numbness throughout her body, 

mental fogginess, decreased memory and concentration, and trouble walking. (689, 694.) 

As a result of her chest pain, the clinic admitted her for observation. (702.) Anderson 

underwent various cardiac tests which cleared her of any cardiac issues. (689, 696.) 

Case 2:15-cv-00428-GMS Document 32 Filed 02/29/16 Page 4 of 28
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

However, during her stay at the clinic, her migratory pain and numbness intensified 

causing the clinic to consult Dr. Amelia Adcock, a neurologist. (689.) 

 In her April 18, 2013 report, Dr. Adcock outlined Anderson’s previous care, and 

marked down that Anderson did not follow up with her previous neurologists “because 

she felt they were dismissive of her symptoms.” (690.) Dr. Adcock examined Anderson, 

and noted that she complained of a headache with “7/10 [pain], although she appears in 

no acute distress.” (691.) Dr. Adcock further explained that Anderson seemed “to have 

no difficulty with recall,” and “cogently describe[d] her medical history.” (691.) After 

completing her examination, Dr. Adcock described Anderson as someone with 

“migratory multifocal complaints and history of untreated fibromyalgia with essentially 

normal neurologic exam.” (691.) Dr. Adcock added that she did “not believe [Anderson] 

has any serious chronic neurologic condition” since “[h]er exam and clinical history are 

not consistent with [such a condition].” (691.) In conclusion, Dr. Adcock recommended 

that as to Anderson’s cognitive complaints she undergo “outpatient neuropsych testing 

with personality profile” in order to “prov[e] to [her that] her cognition is normal[.]” 

(692.) Finally, Dr. Adcock prescribed pain medication for Anderson’s headaches, but 

otherwise attributed her hoarseness and migratory paresthesias to her “clinical syndrome” 

since at least the hoarseness is “likely nonphysiologic in nature.” (692.) 

 Anderson remained at the Mayo Clinic until April 19, 2013, on which her 

attending physician, Dr. Jason Vance, drafted a hospital discharge summary that included 

a principal diagnosis of “intractable back pain with chronic pain syndrome.” (693.) Dr. 

Vance also reported a long list of secondary diagnoses. (See 693–94.) As to Anderson’s 

pain, while under Dr. Vance’s care she was scheduled to undergo a stress test, but Dr. 

Vance postponed the test due to Anderson’s “acutely worsening pain.” (694.) Dr. Vance 

then adjusted her pain meds until her pain subsided. (694.) Dr. Vance also noted that 

generalized numbness persisted throughout Anderson’s time at the clinic; however, she 

“remained neurologically intact with full strength of bilateral upper and lower extremities 

on clinical exam.” (695.) As to Anderson’s history of falls, Dr. Vance observed that she 

Case 2:15-cv-00428-GMS Document 32 Filed 02/29/16 Page 5 of 28
- 6 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

“worked with physical therapy, but required minimal assist.” (695.) Dr. Vance also 

started Anderson on a trial of Cymbalta for her headaches and pain. (692, 697.) Finally, 

Dr. Vance ordered a speech evaluation to help diagnose Anderson’s issues with 

hoarseness, which returned normal results. (724.) 

 On April 18, 2013, Dr. Lykins completed a Medical Request Form evaluating 

Anderson’s disability claim as to her dysphonia, i.e., difficulty speaking. (875.) Dr. 

Lykins wrote “none” when asked to state whether dysphonia caused any work related 

restrictions. (875.) 

 On April 29, 2013, Anderson followed-up with Dr. Durbin who “told [her] the 

present available evidence is not consistent with a degenerative process,” and therefore if 

she wanted to pursue disability benefits, she “should gather all medical 

information/evaluation to date to be presented to an examiner who is trained to determine 

candidacy for disability.” (1061.) 

 Anderson met with Dr. Seth Kaufman, a neurologist, on May 9, 2013. (479.) 

Anderson presented a complaint of numbness, pain in her back and neck, headaches, and 

problems with memory, walking, and talking. (479.) Dr. Kaufman examined Anderson, 

and observed her speech to be “hypophonic and has decreased fluency,” but with 

“[n]ormal naming and repetition.” (482.) Otherwise, Dr. Kaufman ordered up a litany of 

tests and laboratory studies related to Anderson’s other symptoms. (479–83.) Anderson 

returned to Dr. Kaufman on June 19, 2013 for a follow up appointment. (474.) She 

expressed that her symptoms had remained the same since her May visit. (474.) While 

Dr. Kaufman started Anderson on a new drug for her headaches and noted her 

degenerative disc issues, Dr. Kaufman made no other abnormal observations. (477.) He 

ordered a follow-up in 6–8 weeks. (477.) On July 18, 2013, Anderson returned and 

reported no improvement in her headaches, speech, or cognitive issues. (468.) Dr. 

Kaufman ordered a DaT scan in order to rule out the possibility of a Parkinson’s 

Disorder. (472.) Anderson followed-up with Dr. Kaufman for the final time on October 

18, 2013, where again, she reported unchanged symptoms except with greater 

Case 2:15-cv-00428-GMS Document 32 Filed 02/29/16 Page 6 of 28
- 7 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

occurrences of lightheadedness. (463.) Dr. Kaufman reported that Anderson’s cognitive 

testing showed “mild changes but no evidence of dementia.” (463.) However, 

Anderson’s neuropsychological assessment “revealed slowed speed of information 

processing[,] [m]ild impairment of verbal learning and memory[, and] [c]ognitive issues 

felt to be multifactorial in setting of chronic pain, depression, sleep disturbance.” (466.) 

Otherwise, all other tests and studies produced normal results. (466.) 

 Around June 6, 2013, Dr. Scott Taylor, board certified in occupational and 

preventive medicine, and employed by LINA, reviewed Anderson’s submitted medical 

records and in a preliminary report found that they failed to provide “documentation of 

physical or cognitive functional deficits by clinically measurable testing to support 

[Anderson’s] inability to perform work activities from 03/26/13 forward.” (183.) 

Nevertheless, Dr. Taylor recommended Anderson be subject to certain restrictions “due 

to reported unsteadiness” like no climbing, no working at heights, and “no working 

around/with moving machinery/vehicles.” (183.) 

 Based on Dr. Taylor’s determination, LINA officially denied Anderson’s STD 

claim on June 6, 2013. (394.) A short term disability manager, nurse care manager, 

medical director, and a senior claim manager reviewed Anderson’s file. (395.) The 

denial detailed what information LINA considered in its review, which included all of the 

testing and examinations Anderson underwent from March 11, 2013 until May 15, 2013. 

(395.) LINA summarized the relevant findings and concluded that despite some 

limitations or restrictions due to her condition, “[t]here was no definite evidence in the 

medical records that [Anderson] received restrictions or were removed from work 

activities by [her] treating physicians.” (397.) Accordingly, without “other 

documentation, the medical records reviewed d[id] not provide documentation of 

physical or cognitive functional deficits by clinically measureable testing to support 

[Anderson’s] inability to perform work activities from March 26, 2013 to present.” 

(397.) On June 17, 2013, Anderson appealed LINA’s STD denial. (814.) 

/ / / 

Case 2:15-cv-00428-GMS Document 32 Filed 02/29/16 Page 7 of 28
- 8 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 In May 2013, Dr. Chad Campbell took over as Anderson’s family doctor/primary 

care physician. (519.) Dr. Campbell examined Anderson at least seven times between 

May 14, 2013 and December 6, 2013. (508, 510, 511, 513, 515, 517, 519.) In May 2013, 

Dr. Campbell assessed Anderson and noted that her primary ailment was what he 

described as “unspecified hereditary and idiopathic peripheral neuropathy.” (519, 517, 

515, 513.) In his progress notes after Anderson’s third visit on June 24, 2013, Dr. 

Campbell noted “disability” as the reason for the appointment, and then expressed his 

treatment recommendations for Anderson’s peripheral neuropathy, which included 

amongst other things: “No working. . . .” (515.) Starting with Anderson’s July 3, 2013 

appointment, Dr. Campbell made similar notes related to the reason for Anderson’s visit, 

like Anderson “comes in to discuss FMLA [Family and Medical Leave Act] and plan.” 

(513.) Related notes appear in Anderson’s July 22 and August 27, 2013 progress notes as 

well. (511, 510 (“needs to get paper work ready for disability”).) In late July, Dr. 

Campbell began listing headaches as Anderson’s primary ailment and not peripheral 

neuropathy. (511.) 

 At Anderson’s request, Dr. Campbell wrote a letter dated May 28, 2013 outlining 

Anderson’s symptoms and ultimately concluding that “Anderson cannot perform her job 

functions, nor could she perform a job of minimal or less demand.” (639.) Anderson 

included the letter as part of her STD appeal. (634.) 

 Dr. Campbell also wrote a subsequent letter on July 23, 2013 that LINA accounted 

for in its STD appeal review, which stated that Anderson “ha[d] been diagnosed with 

chronic migraines, fibromyalgia, degenerative disc disease, spinal stenosis, and an 

unknown neurologic degenerative disorder which still needs further testing . . . .” (615.) 

Dr. Campbell concluded that Anderson suffers from various ailments that render her 

“unable to work in any fashion . . . .” (615.) He further stated that Anderson’s 

“symptoms started 3/26/15 and have unfortunately not [stopped].” (616.) Dr. Campbell 

also expressed his hope that eventually she “will gain a lot of her function back and be 

able to return to work.” (616.) The letter ultimately requested LINA to “look over the 

Case 2:15-cv-00428-GMS Document 32 Filed 02/29/16 Page 8 of 28
- 9 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

situation again and reconsider [its] decision as the frustrations of trying to get this 

approved do nothing but add to the stress of a patient who needs every ounce of her 

energy to work on getting a diagnosis and getting better.” (616.) 

 Dr. Kaufman referred Anderson to Dr. Jeannine Morrone-Strupinsky, a 

neuropsychologist, for a neuropsychological “evaluation to obtain a quantitative 

assessment of [Anderson’s] current level of neurocognitive functioning,” and to assist 

with diagnosis and treatment. (534.) During the five-hour appointment on July 15, 2013, 

Anderson underwent extensive neuropsychological testing. (535–36.) Dr. MorroneStrupinsky also evaluated Anderson’s intellectual functioning by calculating her Full 

Scale IQ and concluding that she performed in the average range in intellectual 

functioning, core verbal, and core performance abilities. (536.) Dr. MorroneStrupinsky’s final impressions stated that Anderson “demonstrated slowed speed of 

information processing, . . . [v]erbal learning and memory were mildly impaired, where 

visuospatial learning and memory were average. . . . [F]ine manual dexterity was 

borderline impaired. Results otherwise were within normal limits.” (537–38.) The 

“origin of [Anderson’s] cognitive issues likely is multifactorial. Chronic pain, 

depression, and sleep disturbance can reduce cognitive efficiency.” (538.) Dr. MorroneStrupinsky recommended that Anderson implement helpful strategies like a day-planner 

to “circumvent [her] cognitive lapses,” and suggested that she could benefit from 

“mindfulness meditation for pain management and improved concentration.” (538.) 

 Upon a referral from Dr. Adcock, Dr. Dona Locke saw Anderson on July 31, 2013 

and conducted a neuropsychometric evaluation. (681.) Dr. Locke’s evaluation tested 

Anderson’s “premorbid baseline,” language, attention/concentration, visuospatial, 

memory, speed, and personality. (683–84.) Anderson fell into the lower average or 

impaired range on language, attention/concentration, memory, and speed. (683–84.) Dr. 

Locke opined that Anderson had an abnormal cognitive profile “primarily due to 

impairment in executive functioning and memory[;]” however, Dr. Locke cautioned that 

Anderson’s scores may overestimate her cognitive difficulties since she was unable to 

Case 2:15-cv-00428-GMS Document 32 Filed 02/29/16 Page 9 of 28
- 10 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

fully engage in all testing due to fatigue and reduced stamina. (684.) Notably, Anderson, 

for the first time on record, utilized a wheelchair and a walker. (682.) 

 On September 30, 2013, LINA affirmed its denial of Anderson’s STD claim. 

(378.) LINA assessed in its evaluation additional evidence that spanned from November 

3, 2012 to August 1, 2013. (379.) Both an appeal nurse claim manager and an appeals 

senior associate reviewed Anderson’s file. (379.) Ultimately, LINA found that the 

medical evidence did not support “a degree of functional loss present and of a severity to 

continuously preclude” Anderson from performing her duties as an account manager 

starting on March 26, 2013. (380.) 

 On January 2, 2014, Olga Reupert, the vice-president of benefits and 

compensation at HUB, contacted LINA with an inquiry regarding LINA’s denial of 

Anderson’s benefits claim. (613.) Ms. Reupert sought to “understand the basis of the 

denial,” and requested that LINA review Anderson’s claim once more. (613.) Ms. 

Reupert noted that it was “unusual that a person with this much medical support could be 

denied.” (613.) Her email also included a copy of Dr. Campbell’s July 23, 2013 letter as 

well as a letter from Dr. Kaufman in support of finding Anderson disabled. (615–17.) In 

the short September 5, 2013 letter that Ms. Reupert first introduced to LINA in her 

January 2014 correspondence, Dr. Kaufman asked LINA to “reconsider [its] decision to 

deny [Anderson] disability benefits.” (617.) 

III. LINA Denies Anderson’s Initial LTD Claim and Affirms Its Decision on 

 Appeal 

 After LINA denied her STD claim, Anderson retained counsel who, on January 

31, 2014, contacted LINA and requested a long term disability (“LTD”) claim form. 

(523.) Around the same time, Anderson moved from Arizona to Missouri. (74.) 

 HUB’s LTD claim employs a pre-existing condition exclusion if the claimant has 

been covered for less than a year. (LINAAPOL000028.) Anderson’s disability 

commenced on March 26, 2013, within a year of her effective date of coverage, June 1 , 

2012, thus the pre-existing condition exclusion potentially applied. (212; 

Case 2:15-cv-00428-GMS Document 32 Filed 02/29/16 Page 10 of 28
- 11 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

LINAAPOL000028.) A condition is pre-existing if the claimant incurred expenses or 

sought treatment, care, or services for it during the three-month period preceding the 

claimant’s effective date. (266.) Accordingly, LINA wrote Anderson on February 6, 

2014 and requested medical records covering the period from March 1, 2012 to May 31, 

2012. (266.) LINA explained that if it did not receive the requested information by 

March 10, 2014, it would render a decision on Anderson’s LTD claim based on the 

“information on file.” (266.) Anderson’s counsel successfully obtained some of the 

relevant records, however, counsel could not track down all of the pertinent documents 

requested by LINA by the deadline. (1031, 1094–95.) 

 On March 10, 2014, LINA denied Anderson’s LTD claim because it “did not 

receive information from Dr. Gause, Dr. Hessler and Dr. Lykins for the time period of 

March 1, 2012 through May 31, 2012, and, as such, w[as] unable to determine if” the preexisting condition exclusion barred Anderson’s LTD claim. (246–47.) 

 In a May 28, 2014 letter, Anderson’s counsel appealed LINA’s denial of LTD 

coverage, provided LINA’s desired 2012 medical records covering the pre-existing 

condition period, and attached additional documents in support of a disability finding. 

(931–34.) The additional documents included a Social Security Disability Insurance 

(“SSDI”) award letter (981), an independent medical exam (“IME”) conducted by Dr. 

Joseph M. Dooley for the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) (990), and a 

declaration provided by Anderson (998). 

 The award letter found Anderson disabled under the SSA’s rules as of March 25, 

2013. (981.) Dr. Dooley, a neurologist, conducted his IME of Anderson on April 1, 

2014. (990.) Anderson chiefly complained of “spinal stenosis, degenerative neurological 

condition, numbness of the face and throat, memory issues, concentration issues, possibly 

multiple system atrophy, blood pressure, breathing issues.” (990.) Anderson explained 

to Dr. Dooley her history of trying to determine the cause of her ailments. (991.) She 

explained that her condition had become progressively worse, and since at least January 

2014 she required the assistance of a walker or wheelchair. (991.) While physically 

Case 2:15-cv-00428-GMS Document 32 Filed 02/29/16 Page 11 of 28
- 12 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

examining Anderson, Dr. Dooley observed a “slight tremor,” reduced “pin sensation . . . 

over the entire body,” “gait is broad-based, extremely unsteady, [and] she would fall if 

not supported.” (992.) He noted her main impairments as “her inability to stand and 

walk and ataxia and problems using her upper extremities despite normal strength.” 

(992.) His final impressions concluded that “she has some element of peripheral 

neuropathy. She has cerebellar degeneration and some signs of cognitive problems and 

some problems with speech and I think it’s likely that she has neurological degenerative 

disease and muscle system atrophy is likely.” (993.) 

 Anderson’s May 25, 2014 declaration states that her disability cannot be excluded 

from coverage as a pre-existing condition since she did not encounter any of her 

symptoms “during the period from March 1, 2012 through May 31, 2012.” (999.) The 

declaration also generally describes the onset of her symptoms in early 2013. (999.) 

 On June 6, 2014, LINA acknowledged receipt of Anderson’s May 28, 2014 appeal 

including the medical records covering the pre-existing condition period and the 

additional attached documents. (244.) Yet, on July 28, 2014, LINA explained that while 

the medical records Anderson provided cleared Dr. Gause from the pre-existing condition 

period, they failed to do so for Dr. Hessler and Dr. Lykins. (242.) LINA therefore 

needed a note from both doctors “stating treatment or no treatment” of Anderson during 

the relevant timeframe. (242.) On October 19, 2014, Anderson’s counsel supplied a 

certification from Dr. Hessler and Dr. Lykins that neither doctor treated Anderson over 

the course of the pre-existing condition timeframe. (911–14.) 

 In early November 2014, Dr. Richard Vatt, board certified in aerospace medicine 

and occupational medicine, reviewed Anderson’s LTD claim on LINA’s behalf to reach a 

disability conclusion. (448–56.) Dr. Vatt understood Anderson’s occupation to be an 

account manager, which involved sedentary work demands. (448.) In a document dated 

November 6, 2014, Dr. Vatt outlined Anderson’s medical records in detail starting with 

her first hospital visit on November 3, 2012 for pyelonephritis up through Dr. Dooley’s 

IME report entered on April 1, 2014. (449–56.) Dr. Vatt concluded that “the medical 

Case 2:15-cv-00428-GMS Document 32 Filed 02/29/16 Page 12 of 28
- 13 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

records reviewed do not document the presence of significant functional limitations that 

are continuous 03/26/2013 through 06/24/2013.” (448.) Dr. Vatt also highlighted 

Anderson’s irregular symptoms as expressed in the opinions of her physicians with 

regard to her complaints of weakness, gait, cognitive impairment, cardiac issues, and 

neuropathy. (448–49.) Indeed, Dr. Vatt explained that Anderson experienced “migratory 

symptoms for which evaluations have no identified physical pathology as an etiology[,]” 

and that her “physical exams [were] variable.” (449.) In light of Dr. Vatt’s conclusions, 

on November 7, 2014, LINA denied Anderson’s LTD claim citing her variable symptoms 

and the lack of a clear physical pathology to explain her migratory complaints.2

 (238–

40.) 

 On March 10, 2015, Anderson filed her complaint. (Doc. 1.) LINA filed a sealed 

administrative record on August 21, 2015. (Doc. 26.) Both parties filed briefs in 

September 2015 seeking de novo review of the administrative record and a ruling by the 

Court on Anderson’s STD and LTD claims. (Docs. 27–30.) 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

I. Legal Standard 

The presumptive standard of review of a fiduciary’s decision to deny benefits is de 

novo. Tuttle v. Varian Med. Sys. Inc., 15 F. Supp. 3d 944, 948 (D. Ariz. 2013) (citing 

Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc)). Here, 

the parties agree that de novo review applies. (Docs. 27 at 11, 28 at 14.) 

 ERISA declares that an employee benefit plan “shall afford a reasonable 

opportunity to any participant whose claim for benefits has been denied for a full and fair 

review by the appropriate named fiduciary of the decision denying the claim.” 29 U.S.C. 

§ 1133(2). “Full and fair review” must “take[ ] into account all comments, documents, 

records, and other information submitted by the claimant relating to the claim, without 

 

2

 LINA seemed to treat the November 7, 2014 denial as its initial denial of 

Anderson’s LTD claim, apparently considering its earlier March 20, 2014 denial based 

upon the pre-existing condition exclusion issue as something other than an appealable denial. (238–40.) While the parties disagreed over whether Anderson needed to appeal the November 7 decision, ultimately Anderson filed this lawsuit rendering the issue moot. 

Case 2:15-cv-00428-GMS Document 32 Filed 02/29/16 Page 13 of 28
- 14 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

regard to whether such information was submitted or considered in the initial benefit 

determination.” 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503–1(h)(2)(iv). “However, because ERISA grants 

employers ‘large leeway to design disability . . . plans as they see fit,’ full and fair review 

does not require an administrator to credit evidence that cannot support a disability 

determination under the plain language of a plan.” Peterson v. Fed. Express Corp. Long 

Term Disability Plan, 2007 WL 1624644, at *25 (D. Ariz. June 4, 2007) (quoting Black 

& Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, 538 U.S. 822, 833, (2003)). 

De novo review “requires the district court to determine the presence of material 

facts in dispute, just as it does in other motions for summary judgment.” Parra v. Life 

Ins. Co. of N. Am., 258 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1064 (N.D. Cal. 2003) aff’d sub nom. Parrra v. 

CIGNA Group Ins., 81 F. App’x 932 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Tremain v. Bell Industries, 

196 F.3d 970, 978 (9th Cir. 1999)). Under de novo review, no deference is given to the 

administrator’s decision to deny benefits. Kearney v. Standard Ins. Co., 175 F.3d 1084, 

1090 n.2 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 

115 (1989). “In a trial on the administrative record, the Court ‘can evaluate the 

persuasiveness of conflicting testimony and decide which is more likely true.’” Gemmel 

v. Systemhouse, Inc., 2009 WL 3157263, at *11 (D. Ariz. Sept. 28, 2009) (quoting 

Kearney v. Standard Ins. Co., 175 F.3d 1084, 1095 (9th Cir. 1999)). Nevertheless, the 

burden rests squarely on the plaintiff to prove that she was entitled to benefits under the 

STD and/or LTD Plans. Muniz v. Amec Const. Mgmt., Inc., 623 F.3d 1290, 1294 (9th 

Cir. 2010); Schwartz v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 463 F. Supp. 2d 971, 982 (D. Ariz. 

2006) (“Plaintiff has the burden of proof to show that he was eligible for continued long 

term disability benefits based on the terms and conditions of the ERISA plan.”). 

II. Analysis 

 A. The Plan 

Both the STD and LTD claims require the same showing of disability: 

 “The Employee is considered Disabled if, solely because of Injury or Sickness, he 

or she is: (1) Unable to perform the material duties of his or her Regular Occupation; and 

Case 2:15-cv-00428-GMS Document 32 Filed 02/29/16 Page 14 of 28
- 15 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

(2) unable to earn 80% or more of his or her Indexed Earnings from working on his or her 

Regular Occupation.” (LINAASTD000011 (STD); LINAAPOL000019 (LTD).) 

“Sickness” is defined as “[a]ny physical or mental illness.” (LINAASTD000026; 

LINAAPOL000036.) “Regular Occupation” is defined as “[t]he occupation the 

Employee routinely performs at the time the Disability begins . . . [with] the duties of the 

occupation as [they are] normally performed in the general labor market in the national 

economy.” (LINAASTD000026; LINAAPOL000036.) Anderson must provide “proof 

of earnings” or “satisfactory proof of Disability before benefits will paid.” 

(LINAASTD000011, LINAASTD000015; LINAAPOL000019, LINAAPOL000024.) 

 The Plan explains that “[t]he Insurance Company will pay Disability Benefits if an 

Employee becomes Disabled while covered under this Policy.” (LINAASTD000015; 

LINAAPOL000024.) Under both the STD and LTD claims, the Employee must satisfy 

the Elimination Period, defined as “the period of time an Employee must be continuously 

Disabled before Disability Benefits are payable.” (LINAASTD000015; 

LINAAPOL000024.) STD requires a 15-day elimination period, while LTD requires a 

90-day elimination period. (LINAASTD000011; LINAAPOL000019.) Anderson must 

also be “under the Appropriate Care of a Physician,” which means Anderson must 

“receive[] treatment, care and advice from a Physician who is qualified and experienced 

in the diagnosis and treatment of the conditions causing Disability . . . [c]ontinue[] to 

receive such treatment, care or advice as often as is required[,] . . . [and a]dhere[] to the 

treatment plan . . . .” (LINAASTD000015, LINAASTD000025; LINAAPOL000024, 

LINAAPOL000034.) 

 If otherwise not found Disabled, an “Employee’s coverage will end on . . . the date 

the Employee is no longer in Active Service.” (LINAASTD000013; 

LINAAPOL000022.) The Plan defines “Active Service” as essentially a regularly 

scheduled work-day where the “Employee is performing his or her regular occupation for 

the Employer on a full-time basis.” (LINAASTD000024; LINAAPOL000034.) March 

26, 2013 constituted Anderson’s last day of Active Service. (219.) 

Case 2:15-cv-00428-GMS Document 32 Filed 02/29/16 Page 15 of 28
- 16 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

B. The Impact of De Novo Review and LINA’s Previous Decisions 

Anderson dedicates a significant portion of her briefing to the various ways in 

which LINA erred in its denial of Anderson’s STD and LTD claims. Under de novo

review, however, the Court reaches its own conclusions without any deference given to 

LINA’s previous determinations. See Abatie, 458 F.3d at 971–72. Thus, Anderson’s 

focus on the process by which LINA reached its conclusions, for the most part, does not 

affect the Court’s review. See id. Nevertheless, Anderson raises one argument that goes 

to the completeness of the record, and other arguments that, while originally briefed as 

criticisms of LINA’s disability determination process, are interpreted by the Court as a 

suggestion of the appropriate interpretive law that is applicable to its de novo review. 

 1. “Full and Fair Review” 

 In assessing an appeal from a group health plan’s adverse benefit determination 

“that is based in whole or in part on a medical judgment,” the plan must “consult with a 

health care professional who has appropriate training and experience in the field of 

medicine involved in the medical judgment,” 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503–1(h)(3)(iii), “who is 

neither an individual who was consulted in connection with the adverse benefit 

determination that is the subject of the appeal, nor the subordinate of any such 

individual,” 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503–1(h)(3)(v). 

 Anderson complains that LINA violated § 2560.503–1(h)(3)(iii) when it employed 

an Appeal Nurse Claim Manager (“ANCM”), and not a “qualified physician,” to review 

Anderson’s STD appeal. (Doc. 28 at 6.) When a claimant’s claim is denied a “full and 

fair review” because of some procedural irregularity, “the court may [remand to] take 

additional evidence when the irregularities have prevented full development of the 

record” in order for the court to “recreate what the administrative record would have been 

had the procedure been correct.” Hoffman v. Screen Actors Guild-Producers Pension 

Plan, 571 F. App'x 588, 590 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Abatie, 458 F.3d at 973). Anderson 

does not, however, argue, let alone show how, that LINA’s use of an ANCM and not a 

doctor to review Anderson’s STD appeal “prevented full development of the record.” 

Case 2:15-cv-00428-GMS Document 32 Filed 02/29/16 Page 16 of 28
- 17 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Nor assuming that the record was incomplete due to LINA’s failure to have it reviewed 

by an adequate medical professional, does Anderson provide us with additional facts, 

such as an additional medical evaluation of Anderson’s medical records as they pertain to 

the STD claim. If a claimant asserts that the record is not complete due to a procedural 

inadequacy, then the claimant can put forth additional facts which it asserts are necessary 

to provide a full review of the record. Abatie, 458 F.3d at 973 (“[I]f the administrator did 

not provide a full and fair hearing, . . . the court must . . . permit the participant to present 

additional evidence.”) Anderson has failed to do so here. Consequently, the Court must 

proceed to consider the appeal on the record provided. 

 2. Weighing the Opinions of Treating Physicians, Specialists, and Consulting Physicians 

Anderson contends that the Court should give greater weight to the opinions of 

Anderson’s treating physicians over the opinions of others. Anderson, however, cites no 

authority requiring a court, on de novo review, to accord special weight to the opinions of 

a claimant’s treating physicians. Indeed, the law does not even place that burden on the 

plan administrators themselves. See Black & Decker Disability Plan, 538 U.S. at 834 

(“[C]ourts have no warrant to require administrators automatically to accord special 

weight to the opinions of a claimant's [treating] physician; nor may courts impose on plan 

administrators a discrete burden of explanation when they credit reliable evidence that 

conflicts with a treating physician's evaluation.”) Nevertheless, to the extent that it 

makes more sense to give treating physicians more weight based on their familiarity with 

the patient, the Court believes it makes sense to do so. 

 Anderson also argues that since Dr. Vatt does not practice neurology, his opinion 

on Anderson’s LTD claim lacks credibility. Anderson relies on Zavora v. Paul Revere 

Life Ins. Co., 145 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 1998), which holds that an unspecialized plan 

doctor’s failure to confer with the claimant’s specialist rendered his discretionary denial 

of benefits an abuse of discretion. Id. at 1123. Unlike the doctor in Zavora who 

summarily rejected the opinion of a specialist—the only opinion before him—before 

Case 2:15-cv-00428-GMS Document 32 Filed 02/29/16 Page 17 of 28
- 18 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

denying the claimant’s benefits, here Dr. Vatt reviewed Anderson’s expansive medical 

history, which included the opinions of numerous physicians with various specialties. At 

any event, this Court relies on the evidence of all of the treating physicians whose 

opinions are summarized above more than it relies on Dr. Vatt’s in reaching its decision. 

It, however, also considers Dr. Vatt’s opinion. 

 3. Anderson’s SSA Award 

 The administrative record contains Anderson’s SSA award letter and Dr. Dooley’s 

report that supported the SSA award. The award letter, however, simply found Anderson 

disabled as of March 25, 2013 without any further substantive explanation as to why. 

Nonetheless, the Court accounts for Anderson’s SSA award and Dr. Dooley’s opinion in 

its review. 

 C. Medical Evidence 

De novo review places the burden squarely on Anderson to prove that she is 

entitled to benefits under LINA’s STD and/or LTD plans. See Muniz, 623 F.3d at 1294. 

Anderson must present evidence that proves her “Sickness” prevented her from 

“perform[ing] the material duties of . . . her” job as an account manager and “earn[ing] 

80% or more of . . . her” wages. (LINAASTD000011; LINAAPOL000019.) For 

purposes of ERISA, the duties of an account manager are defined by that position in the 

general labor market in the national economy; thus, according to the Dictionary of 

Occupational Titles, an account manager is a sedentary occupation. (See, e.g., 252.) 

Sedentary means: “Exerting up to 10 pounds of force occasionally or a negligible 

amount of force frequently to lift, carry, push, pull, or otherwise move objects including 

the human body. Sedentary work involves sitting most of the time, but may involve 

walking or standing for brief periods of time. Jobs are Sedentary if walking and standing 

are required only occasionally and all other Sedentary criteria are met.” (252.) To 

prevail on her STD claim, Anderson must prove that she was continuously disabled from 

the day she left work on March 26, 2013, until the end of the 15-day elimination period 

on April 9, 2013. (LINAASTD000011.) Likewise, to prevail on her LTD claim, 

Case 2:15-cv-00428-GMS Document 32 Filed 02/29/16 Page 18 of 28
- 19 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Anderson must prove that she was continuously disabled from the day she left work on 

March 26, 2013, until the end of the 90-day elimination period on June 24, 2013. 

(LINAAPOL000019.) 

 Anderson’s medical records demonstrate various migratory symptoms, yet, in her 

briefing, she generally defined her disabling condition as “a serious and progressive 

neurological condition . . . [that] impaired her cognitive functioning and also damaged 

her ability to control her motor functions.” (Doc. 28 at 1.) Anderson also complained of 

severe back and neck pain, as well as “difficulty getting up and walking,” bouts of 

numbness in her extremities, headaches, and hoarseness. (212.) 

 1. Weighing the Medical Evidence of Anderson’s Ailments 

 

 a. Neurological Condition/Cognitive Function/Neuropathy/Numbness 

Anderson complained chiefly of neurological and cognitive issues. Four 

neurologists, one neuropsychologist, and one psychologist examined Anderson: Dr. 

Laurin, Dr. Adcock, Dr. Kaufman, Dr. Dooley, Dr. Morrone-Strupinsky, and Dr. Locke. 

(811, 691, 466, 448, 534, 681.) 

 Dr. Laurin found the results of Anderson’s neurological exam to be “completely 

normal” in her April 1, 2013 report. (871.) Dr. Adock’s April 18, 2013 report expressed 

serious doubt about Anderson’s alleged “serious chronic neurologic condition[,]” noting 

that her “exam and clinical history [were] not consistent” with Anderson’s complaint. 

(691.) Dr. Adcock hoped to impress on Anderson that her neurologic exam produced 

“reassuring” results in order to “prov[e] to [Anderson that] her cognition [was] normal.” 

(691–92.) As to Anderson’s complaints of numbness, Dr. Adcock believed it “likely part 

of her overall clinical syndrome.” (692.) 

 Dr. Kaufman examined Anderson at least four times between May and October 

2013, and in his final report, he stated that Anderson’s “neuropsychological assessment 

revealed slowed speed of information processing [and m]ild impairment of verbal 

learning and memory.” (466.) Yet, Dr. Kaufman noted that the cause of her cognitive 

Case 2:15-cv-00428-GMS Document 32 Filed 02/29/16 Page 19 of 28
- 20 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

issues remained unclear, and instead expressed that they were likely “multifactorial in 

setting of chronic pain, depression, [and] sleep disturbance.” (466.) Dr. Kaufman, 

however, did express concern in an early September 2013 letter over LINA’s denial of 

Anderson’s STD claim; although his concern stemmed from the denial being premature, 

as opposed to substantively improper, since Anderson “continues to have ongoing 

cognitive changes” and a “neurological workup is ongoing for these symptoms.” (617.) 

 In April 2014, Anderson met with Dr. Dooley in connection with her separate 

SSDI claim. (990.) Dr. Dooley observed Anderson’s strength to be “5/5 in all four 

extremities[,]” a “slight tremor” in her outstretched hands, a mild to moderate “heel to 

shin tremor” with some loss of body control bilaterally, “deep tendon reflexes” in her 

knees but not her ankles, and low sensitivity to pin pricks over her entire body. (992.) 

Dr. Dooley also noted her gait to be “broad-based, extremely unsteady” to the point 

where “she would fall if not supported” (992.) Despite her normal strength in her 

extremities, Dr. Dooley expressed concern that Anderson still had “problems with her 

upper extremities despite normal strength[,]” and noted her main difficulty as “her 

inability to stand and walk.” (992.) Dr. Dooley’s clinical impression determined that 

Anderson developed some form of “peripheral neuropathy[,] . . . cerebellar 

degeneration[,] . . . cognitive problems[,] . . . problems with speech[,] . . . neurological 

degenerative disease and muscle system atrophy . . . .” (993.) 

 In July 2013, Dr. Morrone-Strupinsky found Anderson to be of average 

intelligence, but concluded that Anderson suffered borderline to mild impairment in 

information processing, verbal learning, memory, and fine manual dexterity. (537–38.) 

Dr. Morrone-Strupinsky, like Dr. Kaufman, held Anderson’s cognitive issues to be 

multifactorial in nature, and likely caused by other influences like pain, depression, or 

sleep disturbance which “can reduce cognitive efficiency.” (538.) Finally, Dr. Locke 

conducted a neuropsychological assessment of Anderson, and determined that her 

“cognitive profile [was] abnormal,” primarily due to impairment in her executive 

functioning and memory. (684.) Dr. Locke also scored Anderson below average on her 

Case 2:15-cv-00428-GMS Document 32 Filed 02/29/16 Page 20 of 28
- 21 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

premorbid baseline, and tests covering language, attention/concentration, memory, and 

speed. (683.) In Dr. Locke’s view, Anderson also showed risks of “somatoform 

disorder,” although Anderson denied problems with anxiety or mood. (683.) 

 Anderson’s other physicians also observed and noted her various neurological, 

cognitive, and neuropathic symptoms and issues. (755 (Dr. Durbin), 773 (Dr. Lykins), 

695 (Dr. Vance), 519 (Dr. Campbell).) Specifically, Dr. Campbell diagnosed Anderson 

with unspecified hereditary and idiopathic peripheral neuropathy. (519, 517, 515, 513.) 

MRI and CT scans performed on Anderson’s brain revealed no abnormal findings. (782, 

786.) 

 Finally, starting in late July 2013, Anderson began arriving at appointments in a 

wheelchair and with a walker. (682.) Yet, as Anderson explained to Dr. Dooley, it was 

not until January 2014 that her need for a walker and wheelchair became consistent. 

(991.) 

 Despite the diverse neurological, cognitive, and neuropathic findings recorded by 

the many doctors who examined Anderson, only Dr. Campbell, Anderson’s family 

doctor, specifically directed that Anderson must not work due to her “unspecified 

hereditary and idiopathic peripheral neuropathy.” (515, 639, 615.) None of Anderson’s 

other doctors (neurologist or otherwise) definitively placed any functional restrictions on 

Anderson. Indeed, Dr. Dooley, while concluding that Anderson likely suffered from 

some neurological and cognitive ailments, chose not to outline any specific limitations on 

Anderson. (993.) Furthermore, some doctors opted to prescribe everyday tips and 

remedies to overcome Anderson’s cognitive hurdles as opposed to setting strict 

restrictions; for example, Dr. Morrone-Strupinsky recommended Anderson implement 

helpful routines like using a day-planner to overcome her lapses in memory. (538.) 

 LINA physicians Dr. Taylor and Dr. Vatt also considered Anderson’s varied 

history of neurological, cognitive, and neuropathic symptoms in their recommendations. 

Dr. Taylor accounted for Anderson’s neurological reports, but ultimately concluded that 

the neurologists and their reports failed “to provide documentation of . . . cognitive 

Case 2:15-cv-00428-GMS Document 32 Filed 02/29/16 Page 21 of 28
- 22 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

functional deficits by clinically measurable testing” that validate finding Anderson unable 

to work. (183.) In fact, Dr. Taylor highlighted that no treating physician ordered 

functional restrictions on Anderson as support for his finding of no disability. (183.) 

Likewise, Dr. Vatt reached the same conclusion; in fact, while directly addressing Dr. 

Campbell’s prescribed restrictions, Dr. Vatt disagreed and opined that although Dr. 

Campbell presented a diagnosis of unspecified hereditary and idiopathic peripheral 

neuropathy, “[d]iagnostic testing has not revealed abnormal findings to support the 

diagnosis.” (449.) Dr. Vatt found that Anderson’s varied symptoms and inadequate 

clinical support undermined a finding of disability. (448.) 

 Based on the varied conclusions and medical opinions in the record, there is 

sufficient evidence to support finding that Anderson suffered from negligible to mild 

neurological, cognitive, neuropathic, and/or numbness issues throughout the disability 

timeframe. 

 b. Back and Neck Pain 

Anderson’s other prominent complaint was back and neck pain. Dr. Durbin first 

noted Anderson’s complaints of back and neck pain in February 2013 (1055), Dr. Gause 

identified “degenerative disc disease” in March 2013 (755), Dr. Vance diagnosed 

Anderson with “intractable back pain with chronic pain syndrome” in April 2013 (694), 

Dr. Laurin accounted for degenerative disc disease in her April 2013 report (871), Dr. 

Kaufman noted back and neck pain as well as degenerative disc issues in his report in 

May 2013 (477, 479), Dr. Campbell listed degenerative disc disease, spinal stenosis, and 

fibromyalgia as some of Anderson’s diagnosis in a July 2013 letter (615), and finally Dr. 

Dooley incorporated Anderson’s history of back and neck pain in his report, although he 

made no specific observations on the subject (903). CT scans of Anderson’s spine also 

revealed “lower cervical degenerative disc space narrowing,” “mild to moderate central 

canal narrowing,” and “disc protrusions” in late February. (722–23, 784, 787.) 

 Dr. Taylor included “neck and back pain” in his preliminary report on Anderson’s 

STD claim, although he noted that Anderson scored a 5/5 in a strength test conducted on 

Case 2:15-cv-00428-GMS Document 32 Filed 02/29/16 Page 22 of 28
- 23 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

her neck and extremities. (183.) Dr. Vatt analyzed the medical records of Anderson’s 

many treating and examining physicians who recorded back and neck pain as part of 

Anderson’s overall medical condition, but he did not list back and neck pain as one of 

Anderson’s chief medical ailments. (448–54.) Although under the heading of 

“weakness,” Dr. Vatt opined that “imaging of spine has shown abnormal findings but 

findings have not correlated to examinations.” (448.) Finally, Anderson’s own 

description of pain must be considered. See Saffron v. Wells Fargo & Co. Long Term 

Disability Plan, 522 F.3d 863, 872 (9th Cir. 2008). In her declaration, Anderson testified 

that she felt severe back and neck pain leading up to her last day at HUB. (998–99.) 

Accounting for all of the evidence on the record, sufficient evidence supports a finding 

that Anderson suffered from some low degree of degenerative disc disease or spinal 

stenosis. Nevertheless, only Dr. Campbell expressed any need for restrictions due to 

Anderson’s back and/or neck pain. (615.) 

 c. Headaches 

Beginning in February 2013, Anderson complained of debilitating headaches to 

Dr. Durbin, Dr. Gause, Dr. Lykins, Dr. Adcock, Dr. Vance, Dr. Kaufman, and Dr. 

Campbell. (998, 1056, 753, 774, 691, 692, 479, 511.) Dr. Kaufman analyzed one of 

Anderson’s MRIs, and concluded that certain anomalies in her brain were “consistent 

with migraine or small-vessel ischemic changes.” (466.) Dr. Vatt also considered 

Anderson’s complaints of headaches and migraines in his LTD determination. (448–54.) 

No physician contested the presence of Anderson’s headaches, therefore the record 

supports finding that Anderson indeed suffered from moderate to severe headaches. That 

said, no physician prescribed any restrictions on Anderson due to her headaches. 

 d. Hoarseness 

In March 2013, Anderson complained of hoarseness to Dr. Gause who 

recommended she see an ENT specialist. (755.) Dr. Lykins, an ENT specialist, found no 

physical or neurological source for Anderson’s hoarseness, but opined that it may be a 

“sequela” of her other neurological issues. (774.) Dr. Vance also ordered Anderson to 

Case 2:15-cv-00428-GMS Document 32 Filed 02/29/16 Page 23 of 28
- 24 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

undergo a speech evaluation to help diagnose her hoarseness, however, the results of the 

exam came back normal. (724.) Nonetheless, there is adequate evidence on the record 

that Anderson’s voice went unexpectedly hoarse during the relevant disability period, 

although the cause remains unknown. 

 Dr. Lykins, the only physician to fill out a Medical Request Form from LINA used 

for purposes of determining Anderson’s disability status, wrote “none” when asked if 

Anderson’s hoarseness would cause her any work related restrictions. (875.) And no 

other physician commenting on her hoarseness recommended any other restrictions. 

 2. Total Effect 

The Court, after examining each condition in isolation, must also consider the 

aggregate effect of Anderson’s issues. See Watson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., Inc., 

2012 WL 5464986, at *18 (D. Ariz. Nov. 8, 2012). “The appropriate question [is] not 

simply whether any single condition [is] sufficient to warrant a finding of total disability, 

but also whether the combination of all of [claimant’s] objectively demonstrated 

conditions indicated the presence of total disability under the Plan .” Peterson, 2007 WL 

1624644, at *26. The specific question is whether Anderson’s ailments rendered her 

continuously disabled from March 26, 2013 to either April 9, 2013 or June 24, 2013. 

 Between March and June 2013 Anderson began to experience various migratory 

symptoms. Those symptoms included neurological issues, cognitive problems, 

neuropathy, back and neck pain, headaches, hoarseness, and numbness. As explained 

previously, the evidence supports this finding. The evidence, however, does not support 

finding Anderson disabled under the Plan. 

 As an initial matter, Dr. Campbell is the only physician on record to have 

expressly held that Anderson could not work due to her symptoms. (See 515, 639, 615.) 

The Court finds that Dr. Campbell’s conclusions are not entitled to the weight of the 

other medical professionals who treated, examined, or reviewed Anderson and her 

medical records. Dr. Campbell first examined Anderson on May 14, 2013. (519.) His 

notes from that visit list Anderson’s complaints but fail to outline what diagnostic testing 

Case 2:15-cv-00428-GMS Document 32 Filed 02/29/16 Page 24 of 28
- 25 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Dr. Campbell performed or planned to perform to determine the cause of Anderson’s 

issues. (519.) Nevertheless, two weeks later, on May 28, 2013, Dr. Campbell wrote a 

letter concluding that Anderson “suffers from multiple neurological symptoms . . . [that] 

have progressed to a disabling condition.” (639.) Without providing any support for his 

findings beyond mentioning that Anderson spent time at the Mayo Clinic and was 

examined by an ENT specialist and a neurologist, Dr. Campbell declared Anderson 

disabled and unable to “perform her job functions, nor . . . perform a job of minimal or 

less demand.” (639.) Having examined Anderson only once, Dr. Campbell’s conclusion 

is unsupported by the his notes or Anderson’s prior medical records. Further, after just 

another four examinations, Dr. Campbell wrote a second letter on July 23, 2013 

diagnosing Anderson with “chronic migraines, fibromyalgia, degenerative disc disease, 

spinal stenosis, and an unknown neurologic degenerative disorder . . . .” (615.) While 

Dr. Campbell states that “[t]hese symptoms and diagnoses can be confirmed in my notes 

and/or the notes of the neurologists and hospitals[,]” his notes and the notes of 

Anderson’s other physicians fail to support such a decisive list of diagnoses and 

consequential limitations. (616.) The Court agrees with Dr. Vatt’s views on Dr. 

Campbell’s conclusions: he “does not provide documentation of physical examinations, 

diagnostic testing, or measuring of functional limitations to support his . . . opinion that 

[Anderson] is unable to work.” (449.) Moreover, Dr. Campbell’s credibility is also 

undermined by the fact that he noted “disability” as the reason for Anderson’s June 24, 

2013 appointment and wrote down similar reasons for Anderson’s July 3, July 22, and 

August 27 examinations. (See 515, 513, 511, 510.) 

 Anderson argues that the Court should consider Dr. Dooley’s report the most 

credible given his position as neither one of Anderson’s treating physicians nor one of 

LINA’s consulting physicians. See Black & Decker Disability Plan, 538 U.S. at 832 

(“[I]f a consultant engaged by a plan may have an ‘incentive’ to make a finding of ‘not 

disabled,’ so a treating physician, in a close case, may favor a finding of ‘disabled.’”). 

That may be true; however, as noted above, Dr. Dooley’s report does not set forth any 

Case 2:15-cv-00428-GMS Document 32 Filed 02/29/16 Page 25 of 28
- 26 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

specific restrictions relating to Anderson. The lack of such a recommendation diminishes 

the medical record’s usefulness. Nonetheless, Anderson contends that although Dr. 

Dooley chose not to include any limitations on Anderson after concluding that she likely 

suffered from some neurologic or cognitive ailments, the report did lead to the SSA 

finding Anderson disabled; thus, the practical effect is that the report at least implies the 

need for functional limitations. The Court, however, finds that the weight of Dr. 

Dooley’s report in this respect is still limited. The burden to prove disability within the 

SSA framework is markedly dissimilar to the burden at play in an ERISA case; 

moreover, the SSA’s disability award on record lacks any specific findings for the Court 

to weigh. Further, Dr. Dooley examined Anderson approximately one year after her last 

day at HUB. Despite Dr. Dooley analyzing Anderson’s full medical history, his opinion 

highlights symptoms that Anderson reported were objectively worse in 2014 than during 

the disability timeframe, e.g., Anderson’s continual need for a wheelchair and/or walker. 

(991.) On its face, Dr. Dooley’s report fails to articulate how the symptoms he observed 

in 2014 also existed back in 2013 during the disability timeframe. In fact, Anderson 

asserts that her ailments were of a progressive nature; and the essence of a progressive 

disorder contradicts Dr. Dooley’s backwards extrapolation of Anderson’s symptoms. 

(Docs. 28 at 1, 30 at 13; 991; but see 1061 (Dr. Durbin, Anderson’s original family 

doctor, told Anderson on April 29, 2013 that “the present available evidence is not 

consistent with a degenerative process . . . .”).) Thus, while Dr. Dooley’s report may 

imply the need for functional limitations, in the end, it does little to establish Anderson’s 

burden of proving her disability during the relevant 2013 timeframe.3

 

 The record demonstrates that Anderson’s symptoms, at their worst, caused her no 

greater than mild impairment or slightly below average cognitive performance.4

 In light 

 

3

 Olga Reupert, as vice-president of benefits and compensation at HUB, is not qualified to opine on the propriety of Anderson’s disability claim. Moreover, her emails offer no first-hand observation of Anderson’s condition, and are accordingly given little evidentiary value by this Court . (This conclusion does not apply to the letters from Dr. Campbell and Dr. Kaufman attached to the email.) 

4

 To the extent Dr. Dooley’s report discusses Anderson’s trouble standing and 

Case 2:15-cv-00428-GMS Document 32 Filed 02/29/16 Page 26 of 28
- 27 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

of that level of impairment, Anderson fails to carry her burden of establishing her 

inability to continue performing her duties as an account manager. Moreover, by 

assigning little credibility to Dr. Campbell’s conclusions and less weight to Dr. Dooley’s, 

the record is devoid of any clear support for imposing any functional restrictions on 

Anderson. Some doctors, in fact, suggested remedies (pain medication), tips (dayplanner), or limited restrictions (no climbing) to overcome Anderson’s impairments 

rather than recommending work prohibitions. Couple all of that with variable and 

migratory nature of Anderson’s symptoms on the whole, and there is insufficient 

evidence for the Court to conclude that Anderson was continuously “[u]nable to perform 

the material duties of his or her Regular Occupation; and (2) unable to earn 80% or more 

of his or her Indexed Earnings from working on his or her Regular Occupation.” 

(LINAASTD000011; LINAAPOL000019.) Although there may have been days where 

Anderson would have been unable to perform her duties, the record simply does not 

support finding Anderson consistently incapable of “[e]xerting up to 10 pounds of force 

occasionally or a negligible amount of force frequently . . . sitting most of the time, . . . 

[or] walking or standing for brief periods of time,” i.e., sedentary work, between March 

26, 2013 and April 9, 2013 or June 24, 2013. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds Anderson not disabled under either 

LINA’s STD or LTD plans. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

 walking, arguably an impairment more severe than a mild impairment, those troubles do not establish disability. First, as evidenced by the record, remedial measures like wheelchairs and walkers can accommodate those deficiencies. Second, Anderson told 

Dr. Dooley that those issues did not become consistent until January 2014, long after the relevant elimination period under the Plan. 

Case 2:15-cv-00428-GMS Document 32 Filed 02/29/16 Page 27 of 28
- 28 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Anderson’s request for STD and LTD 

benefits is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action and enter 

judgment accordingly. 

 Dated this 29th day of February, 2016. 

Honorable G. Murray Snow

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-00428-GMS Document 32 Filed 02/29/16 Page 28 of 28