N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
TRIC IA Z. C O OPER , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. INTEL C O RPOR

ATION LONG TER M DISAB ILITY PLAN, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-35745 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-01852-HZ
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M arc o A
. He rnande z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding

Subm itte d M ay

10, 2017 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : B YB EE a

nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s, a

nd R AKOFF, *** Se nior Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED MAY11 2017 M O LLYC. 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honora

ble Je d S. R akoff, Se n ior Distric t Judgefor the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.Appe lla nt Tric i a C oope r a ppe a ls the distric t c o urt’ s de c ision gra nting
sum m ary judgm e nt to Appe lle e Inte l C o rporation Long Term Disa bility Pla n a nd dism issing Appe lla

nt’ s c la im for long te rm

disa bility (“ LTD” ) be n e fits. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a nd a ffirm
. C oope r is a

form e r e m

ploy e e at Inte l C o rporation (“ Inte l” ) and wa s a pa rtic i pa nt in thec om

pa ny ’ s LTD pla

n (the “ L TD Pla

n ” ). The LTD Pla

n gra nts be ne fits if a

n e m ploy e e ha s a

n “ illne ss or injury

tha t is substa ntia t e d by Obje c tive M e d ic a l Findings a

nd whic h re n de rs a

Partic ipa nt inc a pa b le of pe rform ing work,” but e xc lude s from

the de finition of Obje c tive M e dic a l Findings “te sts tha t de pe nd on Pa rtic ipa nt se lf-re p orts, suc h a s trigge r point/tende r point te s ts, [whic h] are not c onside re d obje c tive .” C oope r stoppe d working for Inte l in Ja nua ry 2010 a nd, a fte r e x ha

usting her short-te rm

disa bility b e ne fits, a

pplie d for LTD be ne fits. Inte l de le g ate s re sponsibility

for de te rm ining e ligibility to two third-pa

rty c la im s a dm inistra

tors: R e e d Group for initial de te rm inations a nd C la im Appe a l Fiduc i ary

Se rvic e s, Inc
. (“ C AFS” ) for a

p pe a ls. R e e d Group de nie d C oope r’ s c la im be c a use she fa ile d to show Obje c tive M e dic a l Findings tha t she ha d an illne s s re nde ring he r inc a p a ble of pe rform i ng work. C oope r a ppe a le d the de nia l to C AFS, whic h re je c te d he r c la im for the sa m e re a son. C oope r subse que ntly sought judic ia l re vie w, a rguing tha

t 2C AFS ha d a c onflic t of inte re st a

nd de nie d be ne fits ba se d on c l e arly e rrone ous fa c t ua l findings. The

distric t c ourt gra

nte d sum m ary judgm e nt for Appe lle e . C oope r now a

ppe a ls. Whe n a be ne fit pla

n give s a n a dm inistra

tor disc re tiona

ry a uthority to de te rm i ne e ligibility

for be ne fits or to c onstrue the te rm s of the pla n, we “ re vie w the a dm inistra

t or’ s de c i s ion for a

buse of disc re tion.” Sa lom a a v. Honda Long Te rm Disa bility Pla n, 642 F.3d 666, 673 (9th C i r. 2011). “ Abuse of disc re tion re v ie w a pplie s to a

disc re tion-gra

nting pla n e ve n if the a dm inistra

tor ha s a c onflic t of inte re s t.” Abatie v. Alta

He a lth & Life Ins. C o., 458 F.3d 955, 965 (9th C ir. 2006) (e n ba nc ). The C ourt doe s not re a c h the issue of whe the r C AFS suffe re d from a c onflic t of inte re st be c a

use , e v e n if it ha d, C AFS did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny ing LTD be ne fits, e ve n whe n that de c i sion is re vie we d with a low le ve l of ske ptic ism
. Se e id. a t 968 (“ The le ve l of skeptic ism with whic h a c ourt vie w s a

c onflic t e d
a dm inistra

tor’ s de c ision m ay be low if a struc tura l c o nflic t of inte re st is
una c c om pa nie d, for e xam

p le , by any e vide nc e of m a l ic e , of se lf-de a l ing, or of a pa rsim onious c la im s-granting history .” ). C AFS ba se d its c onc lusion, in pa rt, on two in-person m e dic a l e va luations that found tha

t C oope r wa s c a

pa ble of “ light”work. While she c onte nds tha t a 3third phy sic ia n de s c ribe d he r a s “ b e dbound,”this sta te m e nt wa s writte n

“ a s re porte d by

the patie nt a

nd he r husba

nd,” id. , a nd is the re fore not a

n Obje c tive M e d ic a l Finding substa

ntia t ing a n illne ss or injury

unde r the LTD Pla

n . (e xc luding from the de finition of Obje c tive M e dic a l Findings “te sts tha t de pe n d on Pa

rtic ipa nt se lf-re ports.” ). AFFIRM E D.

4