N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GAB E M C C OOL,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. LIFE INSUR

ANC E C OM PANY OF NOR TH AM ER IC A; APPLE, INC
. ,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 18-56529 D.C . No. 2:17-c v-07766-R GK-JEM
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia R . Ga ry Kla usne r, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm itte d June 3, 2020 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd KOR M AN, ** Distric t Judge
. Appe lla nt Ga be M c C ool (M c C ool) a

p pe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt in fa vor of Appe lle e Life Insura n c e C om pa ny of North Am e ric a ’ s (LINA) following



# FIL ED
APR 2 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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.

* * The Honora

ble Edwa rd R . Korm an, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.a

be n c h tria l. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd re vie w the distric t
c ourt’ s fa c tua l findings following a be nc h tria l for c le a

r e rror. S e e Stormans, Inc

. v . W ie sman , 794 F.3d 1064, 1075 (9th C i r. 2015). The distric t c ourt’ s inte rpre tation of theEm

ploy e e R e tire m e nt Se c urity Ac t (ER ISA) a nd c onc l usions of la w a re re vie we d de nov o. Se e id. M c C ool a sse rts tha

t LINA wrongfully

de nie d his re que s te d disa bility be ne fits unde r his e m

ploy e r’ s ER ISA be ne fit pla n . In the norm a l c ourse , a c ourt would re vie w the polic y to de te rm ine the de finition of “ se de nta ry ” or sugge stion of what de finition to follow. Howe ve r, this polic y

doe s not c onta in a

de finition. Thus, the distric t c ourt prope rly a pplie d the sta

nda rd from Armani v . N

orthw e ste rn Mut. Life Ins. C o. , 840 F.3d 1159 (9th C ir. 2016), whic h (1) im pose s the burde n upon the c la i m ant to prove by a pre ponde ran c e of the e vide nc e “ that he wa s disa ble d unde r the te rm s of the pla n” ; a nd (2) a d opts the “ c onsiste n t” inte rpre tation of “ E R ISA law” tha

t a n individual is una

ble to pe rform

“ any oc c upation” unde r a disa bility polic y if tha

t individual “ c annot sit for mo re tha n four hours in a

n e ighthour workda

y .” Id. a t 1163 (c ita

tion om itte d). The distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr in finding tha t M c C ool fa ile d

to m e e t his burde n of proving by

a pre ponde ranc e of the e vide nc e tha t he c o uld not sit for four hours a

da y . Thre e doc tors opine d tha t M c C o ol c ould sit “ fre que ntly .”
2“ Fre que n tly

is de fine d a s be twe e n 2.5 to 5.5 hours in a n 8-hour workda

y .” The distric t c o urt found tha

t M c C ool fa ile d to e s ta

blish tha t he c annot sit for four hours
a da y “ de spite re pe a te d findings tha t he c an sit fre que ntly .” This finding wa s not
c le arly e rrone ous in light of the

re c ord e vide nc e , a

nd wa s c onsiste nt with our
ana ly sis in Armani
. AFFIRM E D.

3