N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT C AR OL M OLANIC K, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. UNITED SER

VIC ES AUTOM OB ILE ASSOC IATION, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-16404 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-01619-GM S M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na G . M urray

Snow, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 13, 2016 * * B e fore : HAW K INS, N.R . SM ITH, a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s. C arol M ola

nic k a p pe a l s pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt in he r a c tion a lle ging tha

t Unite d Se rvic e s Autom obile Assoc iation (“USAA” ) viola te d the E m ploy e e R e tire m e nt Inc om e Se c urity Ac t (“ ER ISA” ) by

de ny i ng he r c la im s 

# FIL ED SEP 19 2016 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 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 eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).for short-te rm disa bility be ne fits. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. Whe re an ERISA pla

n gra nts disc re tiona

ry a uthority to de te rm ine e l igibility for be ne fits or to c onstrue the te rm s of the pla n, we re vie w for an a

b use of disc re tion the a dm inistra

t or’ s inte rpre tation of thepla n, a nd de novo thedistric t c ourt’ s a pplic ation of this sta

nda rd. Taple y v . Loc als 302 &

612 of the

Int’l Union of Ope rating Eng’rs-Emp’rs C onstr. Indus. Re t. Plan , 728 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th C ir. 2013). W e a ffirm . B e c a use M ola n i c k fa ile d

to e sta blish c irc um sta

n c e s tha t wa rrante d giving any c onflic t of inte re st gre at e r we ight, thedistric t c ourt prope rly re vie we d USAA’ s de c ision for a

n a buse of disc re tion. Se eHarlick v . Blue Shie ld of C

al. , 686 F.3d 699, 707 (9th C ir. 2012) (e xpla ining a buse of disc re tion re v ie w is “ te m p e re d by ske p tic ism

whe n the pla n a dm inistra

tor ha s a c onflic t of inte re s t,” and outlining c irc um s ta nc e s whe n c onflic t i s give n m ore or le ss we ight (c ita t ion a nd inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d)). Apply ing this sta nda rd, the distric t c ourt prope rly c onc lude d tha

t USAA did not a

buse its disc re tion in deny i ng be ne fits be c a use the m e dic a l e vide nc e did not support a finding tha

t M ola n ic k wa s disa

ble d from pe rform i ng the m ate ria l an d substa ntia l dutie s of he r job. Se eSalomaa v . Honda Long Te rm Disability

Plan , 642 F.3d 666, 676 (9th C ir. 2011) (e xpla ining tha t in re vie wing pla

n a dm inistra

tor’ s de c ision, a c ourt m a y not “ substitute

[its] vie w for

1 4 - 1 6 4 0 4 2that

of the fa c tfinde r;” rathe r, the c ourt m u st “ c onside r whe the r a

p plic ation of a c orre c t le ga l sta

nda rd wa s (1) illogic a l, (2) im pla usible , or (3) without support in infe re n c e s tha

t m ay be drawn from

the fa c ts in there c ord” (c ita t ions a nd inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d)). W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f, or a

rgum e nts a

n d a lle g ations ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se ePadge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009). AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 1 6 4 0 4 3