Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00130/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00130-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Barnett
Plaintiff
Southern California Edison Company Long Term Disability Plan
Defendant

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM BARNETT,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 

COMPANY LONG TERM DISABILITY 

PLAN, 

 Defendant.

1:12-cv-00130 LJO SAB

Ninth Circuit Case No. 13-16925

REQUEST TO NINTH CIRCUIT FOR 

CLARIFICATION OF RULING 

Plaintiff William Barnett (“Barnett”) brings this action under the Employee Retirement Income 

Security Act (“ERISA”) against Defendant Southern California Edison Company Long Term Disability 

Plan (“the Plan”). Barnett seeks reinstatement of his long term disability (“LTD”) benefits. On August 

26, 2013, after the parties agreed to forego trial, the Court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of 

Law rejecting Barnett’s claim for reinstatement. Doc. 55. Barnett appealed. On December 7, 2015, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a Memorandum affirming this Court’s 

rulings, with one exception. Doc. 77. On the issue of accommodations, the Ninth Circuit reasoned: 

The parties agree that under the Plan provisions that applied to Barnett, 

“[d]isabled means that, due to illness or injury, you are unable to perform .

. . any reasonable job for the company after two years.” Moreover, “[a] 

reasonable job is any gainful activity in any job classification for which 

you are or may reasonably become fitted by education, training, or 

experience.” And that job must be located “at any company within the 

zone . . . in which you were working on your last day at work.” After our 

careful review of the record, we are unable to say that the Administrator 

abused its discretion when it determined that there was a reasonable job 

that Barnett could perform. However, the Administrator did abuse its 

discretion when it implicitly determined that the job in question was 

within the proper zone. Simply put, there was no evidence of the zone in 

Case 1:12-cv-00130-LJO-SAB Document 81 Filed 01/25/16 Page 1 of 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

2

which the reasonable job was located, nor was there explicit evidence of 

the zone in which Barnett worked. As a result, the termination of benefits 

was improper and we must vacate the district court’s determination and 

remand for further proceedings.

Doc. 77 at 2-4 (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted). 

This Court requests clarification as to whether the “further proceedings” called for in the Ninth 

Circuit’s opinion are limited to calculating back-benefits and fees, or, alternatively, whether 

augmentation of the record is permitted on the merits of the “zone” issue. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00130-LJO-SAB Document 81 Filed 01/25/16 Page 2 of 2