NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 17-2583

____________

YVONNE HILBERT,

Appellant

v.

THE LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

______________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(District Court No. 1-15-cv-00471)

District Judge: Hon. Sylvia H. Rambo

______________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

May 21, 2018

______________

Before: McKEE, SHWARTZ, and COWEN, Circuit Judges.

(Opinion filed: November 26, 2018)

_______________________

OPINION

_______________________

 

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

McKEE, Circuit Judge.

Yvonne Hilbert appeals the District Court’s orders granting judgment on the 

pleadings for Lincoln Insurance Company on Hilbert’s claim for equitable relief and

summary judgment for Lincoln on Hilbert’s other claims under the Employee Retirement 

Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461. Hilbert sued after Lincoln 

Insurance denied her request for long-term disability (“LTD”). The District Court also 

denied Hilbert’s request for conflict discovery. In denying that request, the District Court 

held that Hilbert “failed to establish any good faith basis for alleging bias or other 

irregularity in [Lincoln’s] decision-making process that affected her claim or that raises a 

reasonable suspicion of misconduct.”1

As to the motion for judgment on the pleadings concerning Hilbert’s claim that 

Lincoln breached its fiduciary duty, which she contends entitles her to relief under 29 

U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3), the District Court considered the applicable law and correctly applied 

it to reject Hilbert’s claim.2

After a thorough review of the summary judgment record, the District Court 

 

1 Hilbert v. Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Co., No. 1:15-cv-0471, 2016 WL 727584, *2 (M.D. Pa. 

Feb. 24, 2016); see Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 117 (2008) (“The 

conflict of interest . . . should prove more important (perhaps of great importance) where 

circumstances suggest a higher likelihood that it affected the benefits decision . . . . It should 

prove less important (perhaps to the vanishing point) where the administrator has taken 

active steps to reduce potential bias and to promote accuracy . . .”) (internal citations 

omitted).

2 Hilbert v. Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Co., No. 1:15-cv-0471, 2015 WL 8150418, *5 (M.D. Pa. 

Dec. 8, 2015).
3

concluded that Hilbert was not eligible for LTD benefits under the Plan.

3

 We agree that 

the record demonstrates that she is not independently totally disabled from a condition 

other than depression, which is the very same pre-existing condition that disqualified her

for LTD coverage.4In its thorough and thoughtful opinions, the District Court explained 

why Lincoln’s decision to deny Hilbert’s request for LTD coverage was neither arbitrary 

nor capricious. 

Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s orders granting judgment on the 

pleadings and summary judgment in favor of Lincoln, and its denial of Hilbert’s request 

for conflict discovery for substantially the reasons given by the District Court in its 

December 8, 2015, February 24, 2016, and June 19, 2017 opinions.

 

3 Hilbert v. Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Co., No. 1:15-cv-0471, 2017 WL 2633503, *9 (M.D. Pa. 

June 19, 2017).

4

Id. at *7–8.