Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00718/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00718-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scottsdale Healthcare Corporation Health Plan
Defendant
Raymond Vaught
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Raymond Vaught, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Scottsdale Healthcare Corporation

Health Plan, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-718-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Raymond Vaught is a participant in the Scottsdale Healthcare Corporation Health Plan

(“Plan”), an ERISA-governed medical plan. Vaught sought reimbursement of accidentrelated medical costs from the Plan. The claim was denied, and Vaught filed a complaint

alleging that the Plan had violated ERISA and the terms of the Plan. Dkt. #1. On March 10,

2009, the Court issued an order finding that de novo review applies, but concluding that

further briefing was required to determine the scope of review and the need for discovery.

Dkt. #50. The parties have filed memoranda addressing those issues. Dkt. ##51-53.

I. Scope of Review.

Vaught asserts that the central disputed factual issue in this case is whether he was

impaired by alcohol at the time of the accident. Dkt. #51 at 3. He seeks to present extrinsic

evidence purportedly showing that he could not have been impaired because he carefully

limited his alcohol consumption to less than one drink per hour prior to the accident. Id. The

proposed extrinsic evidence includes records from Vaught’s criminal DUI case and testimony

Case 2:05-cv-00718-DGC Document 54 Filed 04/06/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

from Vaught, his companions on the night of the accident, and the attorney who defended

him against the DUI charge. Id. at 10.

In reviewing the benefit decision de novo, the Court has discretion to consider

evidence outside the administrative record under certain limited circumstances. See Abatie

v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 969-70 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc); Mongeluzo

v. Baxter Travenol LTD Benefit Plan, 46 F.3d 938, 943-44 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court may

consider extrinsic evidence where the administrative review process was limited to little or

no evidentiary record. See Opeta v. Nw. Airlines Pension Plan for Contract Employers, 484

F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Quesinberry v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 987 F.2d

1017, 1027 (4th Cir. 1993)).

In this case, the administrative decision was based on a sparse evidentiary record as

the Plan denied Vaught’s claim solely on the basis of a police report of the accident

indicating that Vaught would be charged with DUI and a medical record showing that

Vaught had a 0.261 blood alcohol level. See Dkt. #16-3 at 6-20. The administrative review

process was limited when the Plan erroneously declined to hear Vaught’s appeal. See Dkt.

#50 at 3 (citing Vaught v. Scottsdale Healthcare Corp. Health Plan, 546 F.3d 620, 629 (9th

Cir. 2008)). The Court concludes that consideration of the proposed extrinsic evidence is

necessary to conduct an adequate de novo review.

The Plan contends that the extrinsic evidence is irrelevant because the denial of

Vaught’s claim was proper under the Plan’s DUI exclusion whether or not Vaught was

legally impaired at the time of the accident. Dkt. #53 at 3-4. At this stage of the litigation,

however, the Court is not determining the propriety of the benefits decision. Rather, the

Court must decide whether, in reviewing the benefits decision de novo, Vaught is entitled to

present extrinsic evidence in support of his claim. The Court concludes that he is. See

Opeta, 484 F.3d at 1217.

II. The Need for Discovery.

Vaught seeks to propound various requests for production of documents and requests

for admissions (Dkt. #51 at 12-14), but does not explain why the proposed discovery is

Case 2:05-cv-00718-DGC Document 54 Filed 04/06/09 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

necessary to conduct an adequate de novo review of the benefit decision. The Court will

permit Vaught to propound his proposed requests for admission (Dkt. #51, Ex. 4) and the

third of his proposed requests for production (Dkt. #51, Ex. 3), but will not permit him to

propound his first and second proposed requests for production. Vaught has provided no

explanation for these requests, and they do not appear to be related to the Court’s de novo

review. As Vaught has requested no additional discovery and the Plan has sought none, no

further discovery will be permitted in this case.

III. Further Proceedings.

By April 24, 2009, the parties shall file a joint report setting forth a proposed method

and schedule for resolving the merits of this case, whether by filing motions for summary

judgment or holding a trial. The Court will then enter an appropriate order setting forth the

procedures for resolution of this case on the merits.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s request to supplement the administrative record with extrinsic

evidence is granted.

2. Plaintiff’s request to conduct discovery is granted in part and denied in part

as set forth above.

3. The parties shall file a joint report setting forth a proposed schedule by

April 24, 2009.

DATED this 6th day of April, 2009.

Case 2:05-cv-00718-DGC Document 54 Filed 04/06/09 Page 3 of 3