Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00405/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00405-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company
Defendant
Laurie Smith
Plaintiff

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 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Laurie Smith, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company, 

Defendant.

No. CV-13-00405-TUC-RCC

ORDER 

Before the Court are Mutual of Omaha’s Motion for Decision on the 

Administrative Order (Doc. 17), Ms. Smith’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 18), 

and Magistrate Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation on these two motions (Doc. 

24). The Court has reviewed all of the responses, replies and objections to these 

documents and conducted a de novo of the underlying facts in this case. The Court is 

prepared to adopt Magistrate Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation and hereby 

incorporates Doc. 24 by reference. 

Ms. Smith’s Objections to Magistrate Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation 

Ms. Smith contends that Magistrate Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation 

reaches findings which are not supported by the record due in part to mistakes of fact and 

conclusions based on an evaluation of the record. (Doc. 25). Specifically, Ms. Smith 

contends that 1) Judge Rateau’s findings that there were no tests conducted after January 

2012 is incorrect, 2) Dr. Sullivan’s and not Dr. Scherer’s opinions as to Ms. Smith’s 

disability should be controlling, and 3) the Administrator’s Review was Thorough but 

Case 4:13-cv-00405-RCC-JR Document 27 Filed 08/04/14 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

Incorrect, to the effect that the Magistrate’s Report has multiple errors and the Court 

should instead find in favor of Ms. Smith. 

Ms. Smith Was Not Entitled to Short-Term Disability Benefits After March 26, 2012

 Upon the Court’s de novo review of all relevant pleadings and the 282 page 

administrative record submitted, the Court finds that Ms. Smith was not entitled to shortterm disability benefits after March 26, 2012. 

 Magistrate Judge Rateau carefully outlined and addressed all of Ms. Smith’s 

concerns and contentions in her Report and Recommendation. As the Court now sees it, 

this case essentially boils down to Dr. Scherer’s and Dr. Sullivan’s competing opinions 

on whether Ms. Smith was disabled or could perform her job duties with modifications. 

As Magistrate Judge Rateau correctly found, Dr. Scherer’s opinion could be afforded 

controlling weight in determining that Ms. Smith was not disabled during the relevant 

time period. 

Ms. Smith’s arguments to the contrary are not persuasive. First, while there are 

records of Ms. Smith’s abnormal CPK levels conducted after January 2012, this fact 

alone does nothing to undermine Dr. Scherer’s explanation that “[e]levated CPK/aldolase 

in themselves are not a diagnostic of any specific disorder, and although it can be seen in 

a variety of neuromuscular conditions, it can also be a normal result of muscle trauma 

and exercise,” or, more importantly, Dr. Scherer’s observations that Ms. Smith “moved 

about with ease, and did not have any difficulty walking, standing up from the chair, 

climbing or moving around on the exam table” and “did not appear to be in any kind of 

distress.” 

Similarly, Ms. Smith’s arguments that Dr. Sullivan’s opinions should be 

controlling instead of Dr. Scherer’s are not persuasive. The Court here agrees with 

Magistrate Judge Rateu’s finding that while Ms. Smith’s contention that Dr. Scherer’s 

opinions as to Ms. Smith’s veracity are in part due to animosity is reasonable, Dr. 

Scherer’s objective records of Ms. Smith’s ability to move during her examination are 

also reasonable. As to Ms. Smith’s contention that Dr. Sullivan’s opinion should be 

Case 4:13-cv-00405-RCC-JR Document 27 Filed 08/04/14 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

afforded controlling weight because it is backed by Ms. Smith’s irregular lab results, the 

Court finds this argument unpersuasive because Dr. Scherer’s report also acknowledges 

and explains these irregular lab results to reach a different conclusion. 

Finally, Ms. Smith’s arguments that the administrator’s review was incorrect 

because it did not afford sufficient weight to Dr. Sullivan’s opinions that Ms. Smith was 

at risk for kidney failure if she were not careful due to her CPK and myoglobin levels is 

unpersuasive because the administrator analyzed the record in total and evaluated the 

conflicting opinions. 

While there is no doubt Ms. Smith was in pain and had abnormal lab results, Ms. 

Smith failed to meet her burden that she was disabled per the plan’s definition on the 

relevant dates. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED adopting Magistrate Judge Rateau’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 24); granting (Doc. 17) Mutual of Omaha’s Motion for Decision 

on the Administrative Record; and denying (Doc. 18) Ms. Smith’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment in favor 

of Defendant Mutual of Omaha and close this case. 

Dated this 4th day of August, 2014. 

Case 4:13-cv-00405-RCC-JR Document 27 Filed 08/04/14 Page 3 of 3