Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05204/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05204-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Missouri
Defendant
Cathy Downard
Plaintiff
Office of Personnel Management
Defendant
Office of Personnel Management, an agency of the United States of America
Defendant
United States of America
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

CATHY DOWNARD PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-5204

UNITED STATES OFFICE OF

PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, an

Agency of the United States 

of America, and BLUE CROSS

AND BLUE SHIELD OF MISSOURI DEFENDANTS

O R D E R

Now on this 5th day of July, 2006, comes on to be considered

the Motion to Strike Jury Trial Demand (Doc. 11) filed by

defendant United States Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”).

The Court, having reviewed the motion and supporting memorandum

and plaintiff’s response, and, being well and sufficiently

advised, finds and orders as follows with respect thereto:

1. Plaintiff brings this action under the Federal Employees

Health Benefits Act, 5 U.S.C. § § 8901 - 8914, challenging the

OPM’s decision regarding health insurance coverage for a gastric

bypass procedure plaintiff underwent in October 2003. In her

complaint, plaintiff requested “a jury trial on all factual

issues.” (Doc. 1 ¶ 30.)

2. The OPM argues that plaintiff is not entitled to a jury

trial, as the Court’s review of OPM’s decision regarding

plaintiff’s medical benefits is limited to a review of the 

Case 5:05-cv-05204-JLH Document 16 Filed 07/05/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

administrative record under an arbitrary and capricious standard

of review.

3. In response, plaintiff argues that the OPM’s factfinding procedures were inadequate, warranting a de novo standard

of review “which would lend itself [to] a trial by jury.” (Doc.

14 at pg. 4.) Plaintiff further argues that she should be

permitted to introduce additional evidence because the

administrative record “is adequate.” Id.

4. An administrative agency’s decision is generally

reviewed under the arbitrary and capricious standard set forth in

5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). See Nesseim v. Mail Handlers Benefit Plan,

995 F.2d 804, 806 (8 Cir. 1993). A de novo review is appropriate th

only if the agency’s fact-finding procedures were inadequate. Id.

5. In her complaint, plaintiff cited no deficiencies in

OPM’s fact-finding procedures and merely characterized OPM’s

decision as “arbitrary and capricious.” The conclusory assertion

plaintiff now makes regarding OPM’s fact-finding procedures is

inadequate to warrant de novo review or supplementation of the

administrative record. Further, even if plaintiff had

demonstrated that OPM’s fact-finding procedures were inadequate,

she would not be entitled to a jury trial but to a “trial de novo

by the reviewing court.” See § 706(2)(F) (emphasis added).

6. Accordingly, OPM’s Motion to Strike Jury Trial Demand

(Doc. 11) is GRANTED. 

Case 5:05-cv-05204-JLH Document 16 Filed 07/05/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

The parties are hereby directed to file a stipulated

administrative record, which is to include an index of the

documents contained therein, within 45 days.

Plaintiff is directed to file a brief on her position within

30 days thereafter. Defendant's brief shall be filed within 30

days thereafter. No reply briefs will be allowed unless leave of

the court has been granted. 

The court will conduct its review upon receipt of the

materials outlined above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/S/JIMM LARRY HENDREN 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 5:05-cv-05204-JLH Document 16 Filed 07/05/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>