N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R OB IN C U RR

AN, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. UNITED OF OM AHA LIFE INSUR ANC E C OM PANY, De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 15-56599 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-01935-JLS-B LM
M EM O R ANDUM *

R OB IN C U RR

AN, Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. UNITED OF OM AHA LIFE INSUR ANC E C OM PANY, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-56668

D.C . No. 3:12-c v-01935-JLS-B LM

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Ja nis L. Sa m m artino, Distric t Judge , Pre siding 

# F IL ED
SEP 22 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 30, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER

and IKUTA, C i rc u it Judge s, a nd B ARKER , ** Distric t Judge
. R obin C urran a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de c i sion a ffirm ing Unite d of Om aha ’ s de nia l of disa

bility be ne fits unde r the te rm s of he r e m ploy e e be ne fits pla

n (the Pla n), whic h is gove rne d by

the provisions of the

Em ploy e e R e tire m e nt Inc o m e Se c urity

Ac t (ERISA) of 1974, 29 U.S.C . §§ 1001–1461. Unite d c rossa ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de te rm ination tha t C urran wa s tota lly

disa ble d within the m e aning of thePla

n. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. The distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr in de te rm ining tha t Unite d ha d prope rly lim ite d disa

bility pa ym e n t s to 24 m onths unde r the Pla n’ s Se lf-R e porte d Sym ptom s (SR S) lim ita

tion, give n tha

t the re c ord did not inc lude obje c tive
e vide nc e supporting C urran’ s c la im e d disa bility . C urran c onc e d e s the re is no
e vide nc e in the re c ord tha t he r fibrom

y a lgia dia gnosis wa s ba se d on the 18-point trigge r-point te st. Nor doe s the re c ord e sta blish tha t a fibrom y a lgia dia gnosis wa s ba se d on a

ny othe r obje c tive te st. Furthe r, the re c ord doe s not inc lude any obje c tive e v ide nc e tha

t she suffe rs from

Lym e dise a se or c hronic fa tigue

* * The Honora

ble Sarah Eva

ns B arke r, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of India n a , sitting by

de signa tion. 2sy

ndrom e . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing C urran’ s postjudgm e nt m otion to supple m e nt the re c ord with a

le tte r from

Dr. W ightm an be c a use she c ould ha

ve re a sona

bly se c ure d the le tte r e arlie r in the litiga tion. Se e Fe d. R . C iv. Proc . 59(e ); C arroll v . N

ak atani , 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th C i r. 2003). C ontra ry to C urran’ s a

rgum e nt, Unite d ga

ve C urran m e aningful notific ation of its a dve rse be ne fit de te rm ination, inc luding the“ spe c ific re a son or re a s ons for the a dve rse de te rm ination” and a “ [r] e fe re nc e to the spe c ific pla n provisions on whic h the de te rm i nation is ba se d.” 29 C
. F.R . § 2560.503-1(g); 29 U.S.C
. § 1133(1). Unite d’ s M ay 9, 2011 le tte r, whic h

sta te d tha t the SR S lim ita

t ion wa s
one of the two “provision(s) in your polic y on whic h the de nia l of y our c la im is ba se d” and provide d the full te xt of tha t provision, c om

plie d with there gula

tory
re quire m e nts. S

e e § 2560.503-1(g); Booton v . Loc k he e d Me dic al Be n. Plan , 110 F.3d 1461, 1463 (9th C ir. 1997). 1 Unite d a de quat e ly

notifie d C urran of the “ a dditiona l m at e ria l or inform ation
ne c e ssa ry . . . to pe rfe c t [he r] c la im .” 29 C .F.R . § 2560.503-1(g)(1)(iii). The initia l

1 C urran a rgue s tha t Unite d fa ile d

to give he r prope r notific ation by not re fe re n c i ng the SR S lim ita tion in its fina

l le tte r de ny ing he r a

ppe a l. B e c a

use this argum e nt wa s ra ise d for the first tim e in the re ply brie f, it is wa ive d. MartinezSe rrano v . I.N

.S. , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th C ir. 1996). In a ny e v e nt, it is me ritle ss, be c a use Unite d a de quat e ly

e xpla ine d the ba sis for its denia l of be ne fits in its M ay 11, 2011 de nia l le tte r and C urran did not c ha lle nge the SR S lim ita tion in he r a dm inistra

tive a ppe a l. 3de nia l le tte r provide d a de ta i le d, thre e -pa ge sum

m ary of C urran’ s m e dic a l file and
re pe a te dly

note d the a

bse nc e of spe c ific obje c tive e vide nc e supporting her c la im , inc l uding thela c k of the trigge r-point te st for fibrom y a lgia . Unlike c a se s whe re insure rs de nie d c la im s ba se d on c onc lusory sta t e m e nts tha

t the e vide nc e wa s insuffic ie nt or tha

t se rvic e s we re not c ove re d, se e Saffon v . W e lls Fargo &

C o. Long Te rm Disability

Plan , 522 F.3d 863, 870 (9th C ir. 2008); Booton , 110 F.3d a t 164 & n.4, Unite d am

ply ide ntifie d the e vide nc e re quire d to providean obje c tive ba sis for C urran’ s dia gnose s. W e do not a ddre ss whe the r Unite d wa s re quire d to ple a d the SR S lim ita tion
a s a n a ffirm a t ive de fe nse or whe the r it in fa c t did so. B e c a

use the pa rtie s brie fe d
and a rgue d the SR S lim ita

tion be fore the distric t c ourt, it wa s trie d by im plie d
c onse n t. Se e Fe d. R . C iv. Proc . 15(b)(2); se e also Idaho Plumbe rs & Pipe fitte rs He alth &W

e lfare Fund v . Unite d Me c h. C

ontrac tors, Inc
. , 875 F.2d 212, 214–15 (9th C ir. 1989). 2 AFFIRM E D.

2 B e c a u se we a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s holding tha t Unite d’ s de nia l of be ne fits wa s prope r unde r the SR S lim ita tion, we do not re a c h Unite d’ s c rossa ppe a l. Se e Rinc on Band of Luise no Mission Indians of Rinc on Re se rv ation v
. Sc hw arze ne

gge r , 602 F.3d 1019, 1022 n.1 (9th C ir. 2010). W e a lso de ny C urran’ s c onte ste d m otion for judic ia l notic e , file d M arc h 13, 2017, a s it pe rta ins only to Unite d ’ s c ross-a

ppe a l. 4