UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CUYLER BURK, P.C. 

445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor 

New York, New York 10022 

(212) 752-6252 

Attorneys for Defendants 

The Prudential Insurance Company of America, 

and as to the First Cause of Action Only: 

Rheem Manufacturing Company Long Term 

Disability Plan, and Rheem Manufacturing Company 

By: Stephen D. Cuyler (SDC 7705) 

GALINA WOODLAND 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

RHEEM MANUFACTURING COMPANY 

LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN, RHEEM 

MANUFACTURING COMPANY MEDICAL 

PLAN, RHEEM MANUFACTURING 

COMPANY, AND THE PRUDENTIAL 

INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, 

 Defendant. 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-CV-3210 

(KPC) 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND 

SEPARATE DEFENSES 

 

 Defendant, The Prudential Insurance Company of America (hereinafter referenced as 

“Prudential”), having a principal place of business located at 751 Broad Street, Newark, in the 

State of New Jersey, by and through their attorneys, Cuyler Burk, P.C., hereby answers the 

Complaint of Galina Woodland (“Plaintiff”) on behalf of itself as well as Defendants Rheem 

Manufacturing Company Long Term Disability Plan and Rheem Manufacturing Company, to the 

extent of its involvement with the long term disability plan (collectively, “Rheem”), (said 

defendants, including Prudential and Rheem, collectively referred to hereinafter as the “LTD Plan 

Case 1:07-cv-03210-PKC Document 13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 1 of 23
2 

Defendants”) with regard to all Paragraphs of the Complaint except for those comprising the Second 

Cause of Action thereof, and on behalf of itself (Prudential) with regard to the Second Cause of 

Action of the Complaint, as follows: 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, LTD Plan Defendants 

admit only that Plaintiff alleges an appropriate jurisdictional basis for her complaint. 

2. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, LTD Plan Defendants 

deny that Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative avenues of appeal and has received a final 

denial. Further, to the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Complaint purport to 

allege that Prudential does not have discretion to deny Plaintiff’s claim for benefits under the 

long term disability plan (the “Plan”) at issue, the allegations are denied. Answering the balance 

of the allegations of Paragraph 2, to the extent that the allegations purport to assert conclusions 

of law, no response is required thereto. 

3. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, LTD Plan Defendants 

admit only that venue is proper in this District. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 3 

of the Complaint purport to assert that LTD Plan Defendants breached any contract or duty to 

Plaintiff, the allegations are denied. Answering the balance of the allegations of Paragraph 3, to 

the extent that the allegations purport to assert conclusions of law, no response is required 

thereto. 

NATURE OF ACTION

4. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, LTD Plan Defendants 

admit only that venue is proper in this District, that Rheem is the named Plan Administrator, and 

that Rheem once had an office at the asserted location. To the extent that the allegations of 

Case 1:07-cv-03210-PKC Document 13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 2 of 23
3 

paragraph 4 of the Complaint purport to assert that Plaintiff was “disabled,” as defined by the 

Plan, at the times relevant to this action, the allegations are denied. 

5. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, to the extent that the 

allegations purport to describe the nature of relief sought by Plaintiff, no response is required 

thereto. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 5 of the Complaint purport to impute 

liability to the LTD Plan Defendants, the allegations are denied. 

6. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, the LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that Rheem provided the option of enrolling in the Plan to its employees. 

To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint purport to assert 

conclusions of law, no response is required thereto. LTD Plan Defendants are without sufficient 

knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the balance of the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint. 

7. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 7 of the Complaint, LTD Plan Defendants 

admit that Prudential is the Claims Administrator of the Plan, and the payor of benefits under the 

Plan. 

8. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, to the extent that the 

allegations purport to describe the nature of relief sought by Plaintiff, no response is required 

thereto. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 8 of the Complaint are directed at parties 

other than the LTD Plan Defendants, no response is required thereto. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

9. LTD Plan Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of the 

Complaint. To the extent that the allegations contained in the second sentence of Paragraph 9 of 

the Complaint constitute conclusions of law, no response is required thereto. 

Case 1:07-cv-03210-PKC Document 13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 3 of 23
4 

10. To the extent that the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint 

constitute conclusions of law, no response is required thereto. LTD Plan Defendants deny any 

factual allegations incorporated in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint. 

THE PARTIES

11. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that records that Plaintiff submitted indicate that she was born in 

September of 1937 and was 69 years old upon filing of the Complaint. LTD Plan Defendants are 

without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the balance of the 

allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint. 

12. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 12 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that Rheem is the named Plan Administrator and the named agent for 

service of legal process, that Rheem once maintained an office at the New York address asserted, 

and currently maintains an office at the Georgia address asserted. To the extent that the 

allegations of paragraph 12 of the Complaint purport to assert that Plaintiff was “disabled,” as 

defined by the Plan, at the times relevant to this action, the allegations are denied. To the extent 

that the allegations contained in the second sentence of Paragraph 12 of the Complaint constitute 

conclusions of law, no response is required thereto. 

13. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 13 of the Complaint are directed at 

parties other than the LTD Plan Defendants, no response is required thereto. To the extent that 

the allegations of paragraph 13 of the Complaint purport to assert that Plaintiff was “disabled,” 

as defined by the Plan, at the times relevant to this action, the allegations are denied. 

14. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 14 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that Plaintiff was employed by Rheem at the time that she claimed 

Case 1:07-cv-03210-PKC Document 13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 4 of 23
5 

disability, that Rheem is the named Plan Administrator and the named agent for service of legal 

process, and that Rheem once maintained an office at the New York address asserted and 

currently maintains an office at the Georgia address asserted. To the extent that the allegations 

of paragraph 14 of the Complaint purport to assert that Plaintiff was “disabled,” as defined by the 

Plan, at the times relevant to this action, the allegations are denied. 

15. LTD Plan Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 15 of the Complaint. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS

16. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 16 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that Plaintiff was a covered participant in the Plan, and was employed by 

Rheem through March 20, 2001. To the extent that the allegations of paragraph 16 of the 

Complaint purport to assert that Plaintiff was “disabled,” as defined by the Plan, at the times 

relevant to this action, they are denied. 

17. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 17 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that Plaintiff submitted documentation indicating that she returned to 

work on October 23, 2001. To the extent that the allegations of paragraph 17 of the Complaint 

purport to assert that Plaintiff was “disabled,” as defined by the Plan, at the times relevant to this 

action, the allegations are denied. LTD Plan Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or 

information to form a belief as to the truth of the balance of the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 17 of the Complaint. 

18. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 18 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit that she was a Legal Secretary. LTD Plan Defendants deny the balance of the 

allegations of Paragraph 18 of the Complaint. 

Case 1:07-cv-03210-PKC Document 13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 5 of 23
6 

19. LTD Plan Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 19 of the Complaint. ` 

20. LTD Plan Defendants admit only that Plaintiff’s salary as of March 1, 2001, was 

$1,866.54 semi-monthly. LTD Plan Defendants deny the balance of the allegations of Paragraph 

20 of the Complaint. 

21. LTD Plan Defendants admit only that Plaintiff elected to participate in the Plan 

when she was hired on or about January 23, 1995. LTD Plan Defendants are without sufficient 

knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the balance of the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint. 

22. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 22 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that Prudential issued a Group Insurance Contract (the “Policy”) to 

Rheem, and that Prudential is the Claims Administrator under the Plan. To the extent that the 

allegations of Paragraph 22 of the Complaint purport to impute liability to the LTD Plan 

Defendants, they are denied. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 22 of the Complaint 

are narrative, and purport to describe a basis for what will be alleged in subsequent paragraphs, 

no response is required thereto. 

23. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 23 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that Prudential is the insurer of the Plan, and the payor of any benefits 

due pursuant to the Plan. LTD Plan Defendants deny the allegations of the second sentence of 

Paragraph 23 of the Complaint to the extent that they impute liability to Prudential, and deny the 

balance of the allegations of Paragraph 23. 

24. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 24 of the Complaint purport to 

assert that Plaintiff was “disabled,” as defined by the Plan, at the times relevant to this action, the 

Case 1:07-cv-03210-PKC Document 13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 6 of 23
7 

allegations are denied. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 24 of the Complaint are 

narrative or assert conclusions of law, no response is required thereto. LTD Plan Defendants 

deny the balance of the allegations of Paragraph 24 of the Complaint to the extent that these 

allegations contradict the provisions of the Plan. 

25. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 25 of the Complaint purport to 

describe generally and non-exhaustively the calculation of benefits under the Plan, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit these allegations. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 25 of the 

Complaint purport to contradict provisions of the Plan, and to the extent that they purport to 

assert that Plaintiff was “disabled,” as defined by the Plan, at the times relevant to this action, 

they are denied. LTD Plan Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form 

a belief as to the truth of the balance of the allegations of Paragraph 25 of the Complaint. 

26. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 26 of the Complaint are narrative 

or purport to assert conclusions of law, no response is required thereto. To the extent that the 

allegations of Paragraph 26 of the Complaint purport to contradict provisions of the Plan, they 

are denied. To the extent that the allegations of paragraph 26 of the Complaint purport to impute 

liability to the LTD Plan Defendants and to assert that Plaintiff was “disabled,” as defined by the 

Plan, at the times relevant to this action, they denied. LTD Plan Defendants are without 

sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the balance of the 

allegations of Paragraph 26 of the Complaint. 

27. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 27 of the Complaint purport to 

contradict provisions of the Plan, they are denied. LTD Plan Defendants are without sufficient 

knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the balance of the allegations of 

Paragraph 27 of the Complaint. 

Case 1:07-cv-03210-PKC Document 13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 7 of 23
8 

28. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 28 of the Complaint purport to 

describe generally the “Elimination Period” requirement under the Plan, LTD Plan Defendants 

admit these allegations. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 28 of the Complaint 

purport to contradict provisions of the Plan, they are denied. LTD Plan Defendants are without 

sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the balance of the 

allegations of Paragraph 28 of the Complaint. 

29. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 29 of the Complaint purport to 

assert that the Plaintiff received benefits under the Plan for a limited period commencing on or 

about the alleged date, LTD Plan Defendants admit these allegations. To the extent that the 

allegations of paragraph 29 of the Complaint purport to assert that Plaintiff was “disabled,” as 

defined by the Plan, at the times relevant to this action, they are denied. 

30. LTD Plan Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 30 of the Complaint. 

31. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 31 of the Complaint are narrative 

or purport to assert conclusions of law, no response is required thereto. To the extent that the 

allegations of Paragraph 32 of the Complaint purport to contradict provisions of the Plan, they 

are denied. To the extent that the allegations of paragraph 31 of the Complaint purport to assert 

that Plaintiff was “disabled,” as defined by the Plan, at the times relevant to this action, they are 

denied. LTD Plan Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of the balance of the allegations of Paragraph 31 of the Complaint. 

32. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 32 of the Complaint are narrative 

or purport to assert conclusions of law, no response is required thereto. To the extent that the 

allegations of Paragraph 26 of the Complaint purport to contradict provisions of the Plan, they 

are denied. To the extent that the allegations of paragraph 32 of the Complaint purport to assert 

Case 1:07-cv-03210-PKC Document 13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 8 of 23
9 

that Plaintiff was “disabled,” as defined by the Plan, at the times relevant to this action, they are 

denied. LTD Plan Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of the balance of the allegations of Paragraph 32 of the Complaint. 

33. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 33 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that Plaintiff stopped working on March 20, 2001, and that the medical 

documentation submitted to Prudential by Plaintiff suggests that Plaintiff has sought treatment 

for the maladies enumerated therein. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 33 purport 

to assert that Plaintiff was “disabled,” as defined by the Plan or purport to impute liability to the 

LTD Plan Defendants, at the times relevant to this action, they are denied. 

34. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 34 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that the records submitted to Prudential by Plaintiff reflect that she 

underwent procedures for the maladies enumerated therein at various time. To the extent that the 

allegations of Paragraph 34 of the Complaint purport to impute liability to the LTD Plan 

Defendants, and to the extent that these allegations may be construed to assert that Plaintiff was 

“disabled,” as defined by the Plan, at the times relevant to this action, they are denied. 

35. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 35 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that the content of the March 20, 2002 report speaks for itself. To the 

extent that the allegations of Paragraph 35 of the Complaint purport to impute liability to the 

LTD Plan Defendants, and to the extent that these allegations may be construed to assert that 

Plaintiff was “disabled,” as defined by the Plan, at the times relevant to this action, they are 

denied. 

36. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 36 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that the records submitted to Prudential by Plaintiff reflect that she has 

Case 1:07-cv-03210-PKC Document 13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 9 of 23
10 

undergone physical therapy for a period of time for the conditions enumerated therein. To the 

extent that the allegations of Paragraph 36 of the Complaint purport to impute liability to the 

LTD Plan Defendants, and to the extent that these allegations may be construed to assert that 

Plaintiff was “disabled,” as defined by the Plan, at the times relevant to this action, they are 

denied. 

37. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 37 of the Complaint are narrative, 

or constitute the personal opinions and conclusions of Plaintiff’s counsel, no response is required 

thereto. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 37 of the Complaint purport to impute 

liability to the LTD Plan Defendants, and to the extent that these allegations may be construed to 

assert that Plaintiff was “disabled,” as defined by the Plan, at the times relevant to this action, 

they are denied. 

38. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 38 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that the records submitted to Prudential by Plaintiff reflect that she was at 

one time diagnosed as suffering from transient ischemic attacks (“TIA”). To the extent that the 

allegations of Paragraph 38 of the Complaint are narrative, no response is required thereto. To 

the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 38 of the Complaint purport to impute liability to the 

LTD Plan Defendants, and to the extent that these allegations may be construed to assert that 

Plaintiff was “disabled,” as defined by the Plan, at the times relevant to this action, they are 

denied. 

39. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 39 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that the records submitted to Prudential by Plaintiff reflect that Plaintiff 

complained of the events described in these allegations to her treating physicians. To the extent 

that the allegations of Paragraph 39 of the Complaint purport to assert Plaintiff’s subjective state 

Case 1:07-cv-03210-PKC Document 13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 10 of 23
11 

of mind at a particular point in time, LTD Plan Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or 

information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations. To the extent that the allegations 

of Paragraph 39 of the Complaint purport to impute liability to the LTD Plan Defendants, and to 

the extent that these allegations may be construed to assert that Plaintiff was “disabled,” as 

defined by the Plan, at the times relevant to this action, these allegations are denied. 

40. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 40 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of 

these allegations as Plaintiff identifies neither an office visit date nor the name of the neurologist 

to which she refers, making it impossible for LTD Plan Defendants to corroborate these 

allegations with the documentation in its possession. To the extent that the allegations of 

Paragraph 40 of the Complaint purport to impute liability to the LTD Plan Defendants, and to the 

extent that these allegations may be construed to assert that Plaintiff was “disabled,” as defined 

by the Plan, at the times relevant to this action, they are denied. 

41. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 41 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that the records submitted to Prudential by Plaintiff reflect that Plaintiff 

was examined for the maladies enumerated therein. To the extent that the allegations of 

Paragraph 41 of the Complaint purport to impute liability to the LTD Plan Defendants, and to the 

extent that these allegations may be construed to assert that Plaintiff was “disabled,” as defined 

by the Plan, at the times relevant to this action, they are denied. 

42. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 42 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that the records submitted to Prudential by Plaintiff reflect that Plaintiff 

complained of the events described in these allegations to her treating physician and that the 

content of the report speaks for itself. To the extent that these allegations may be construed to 

Case 1:07-cv-03210-PKC Document 13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 11 of 23
12 

assert that Plaintiff was “disabled,” as defined by the Plan, at the times relevant to this action, 

they are denied. 

43. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 43 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that the records submitted to Prudential by Plaintiff speak for themselves. 

To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 43 of the Complaint purport to impute liability to 

the LTD Plan Defendants, and to the extent that these allegations may be construed to assert that 

Plaintiff was “disabled,” as defined by the Plan, at the times relevant to this action, they are 

denied. 

44. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 44 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that the records submitted to Prudential by Plaintiff reflect that Plaintiff 

was seen in the Emergency Room at Brookhaven Memorial Hospital on the date alleged, 

complained of the alleged symptoms, and was released on the same day with a clinical 

impression of TIA. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 44 of the Complaint purport to 

impute liability to the LTD Plan Defendants, and to the extent that these allegations may be 

construed to assert that Plaintiff was “disabled,” as defined by the Plan, at the times relevant to 

this action, they are denied. 

45. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 45 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that the records submitted to Prudential by Plaintiff reflect that Plaintiff 

was treated for the malady enumerated therein. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 45 

of the Complaint purport to impute liability to the LTD Plan Defendants, and to the extent that 

these allegations may be construed to assert that Plaintiff was “disabled,” as defined by the Plan, 

at the times relevant to this action, they are denied. 

Case 1:07-cv-03210-PKC Document 13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 12 of 23
13 

46. LTD Plan Defendants deny the allegations of the first sentence of Paragraph 46 of 

the Complaint. LTD Plan Defendants admit the allegations of the second sentence of Paragraph 

46 of the Complaint. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 46 of the Complaint purport 

to impute liability to the LTD Plan Defendants, and to the extent that these allegations may be 

construed to assert that Plaintiff was “disabled,” as defined by the Plan, at the times relevant to 

this action, they are denied. 

47. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 47 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that Plaintiff has in the past received medical treatment. Further 

answering the allegations of Paragraph 47 of the Complaint, LTD Plan Defendants are without 

sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to whether Plaintiff continues to receive 

medical treatment at present. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 47 of the Complaint 

purport to impute liability to the LTD Plan Defendants, and to the extent that these allegations 

may be construed to assert that Plaintiff was “disabled,” as defined by the Plan, at the times 

relevant to this action, they are denied. 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR 

LONG-TERM DISABILITY BENEFITS

48. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 48 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit that Plaintiff continued to work through March 20, 2001. 

49. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 49 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that Plaintiff ceased working on March 20, 2001, and has complained of 

the enumerated medical conditions. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 49 of the 

Complaint purport to impute liability to the LTD Plan Defendants, and to the extent that these 

allegations may be construed to assert that Plaintiff was “disabled,” as defined by the Plan, at the 

times relevant to this action, they are denied. 

Case 1:07-cv-03210-PKC Document 13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 13 of 23
14 

50. LTD Plan Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 50 of the Complaint. 

51. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 51 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that Plaintiff applied for benefits under the Plan. LTD Plan Defendants 

are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to balance of the allegations 

of Paragraph 51 of the Complaint. 

52. LTD Plan Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 52 of the Complaint. 

53. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 53 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that Plaintiff sent a letter dated October 27, 2001 characterized as an 

appeal. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 53 of the Complaint purport to impute 

liability to the LTD Plan Defendants, they are denied. 

54. LTD Plan Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 54 of the Complaint. 

55. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 55 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that Prudential terminated Plaintiff’s LTD benefits effective October 29, 

2001. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 55 of the Complaint purport to impute liability 

to the LTD Plan Defendants, they are denied. 

56. LTD Plan Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 56 of the Complaint. 

57. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 57 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that Prudential received a letter of request for appeal from Plaintiff’s 

counsel, dated March 26, 2002. To the extent that the allegations purport to assert that the March 

26, 2002 letter was by its terms identified as Plaintiff’s formal appeal, the allegations are denied. 

58. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 58 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that Prudential received a letter dated June 5, 2003 which speaks for 

Case 1:07-cv-03210-PKC Document 13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 14 of 23
15 

itself. LTD Plan Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as 

to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 58 of the Complaint. 

59. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 59 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit these allegations to the extent that they recount an assertion made by counsel 

in the letter dated June 5, 2003. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 59 of the 

Complaint may be construed to assert substantively that Plaintiff was “disabled,” as defined by 

the Plan, at the times relevant to this action, and to the extent that these allegations purport to 

impute liability to the LTD Plan Defendants, they are denied. 

60. LTD Plan Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 60 of the Complaint. 

61. LTD Plan Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 61 of the Complaint 

insofar as they recite the contents of any correspondence. To the extent that the allegations of 

Paragraph 61 of the Complaint purport to impute liability to the LTD Plan Defendants, and to the 

extent that these allegations may be construed to assert that Plaintiff was “disabled,” as defined 

by the Plan, at the times relevant to this action, they are denied. 

62. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 62 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that Prudential received a letter from Plaintiff’s counsel dated November 

19, 2003. Further answering the allegations of Paragraph 62 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants deny that counsel’s letter dated November 19, 2003, by its terms, constituted a 

formal appeal of Prudential’s determination dated September 11, 2003. 

63. LTD Plan Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 63 of the Complaint, 

except that to the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 63 of the Complaint purport to impute 

liability to the LTD Plan Defendants, and to the extent that these allegations may be construed to 

Case 1:07-cv-03210-PKC Document 13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 15 of 23
16 

assert that Plaintiff was “disabled,” as defined by the Plan, at the times relevant to this action, 

they are denied. 

64. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 64 of the Complaint purport to 

impute liability to the LTD Plan Defendants, they are denied. LTD Plan Defendants are without 

sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the balance of the allegations of 

Paragraph 64 of the Complaint. 

65. LTD Plan Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 65 of the Complaint. 

66. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 66 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that Prudential received a letter dated March 25, 2004, which speaks for 

itself. LTD Plan Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as 

to the truth of the balance of the allegations contained in Paragraph 66 of the Complaint. 

67. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 67 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit that by letter dated March 29, 2004, Prudential advised Plaintiff’s counsel that 

it would reconsider Plaintiff’s “appeal review as a first reconsideration.” LTD Plan Defendants 

deny the balance of the allegations of Paragraph 67. 

68. LTD Plan Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 68 of the Complaint. 

69. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 69 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that Prudential’s clinical team assisted in its determination regarding 

Plaintiff’s claim. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 69 of the Complaint purport to 

impute liability to the LTD Plan Defendants, and to the extent that these allegations may be 

construed to assert that Plaintiff was “disabled,” as defined by the Plan, at the times relevant to 

this action, they are denied. 

Case 1:07-cv-03210-PKC Document 13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 16 of 23
17 

70. Answering the allegations of paragraph 70, LTD Plan Defendants admit only that 

Plaintiff was not examined in person by a physician of Prudential’s choice. To the extent that the 

balance of the allegations of Paragraph 70 of the Complaint purport to impute liability to the 

LTD Plan Defendants, and to the extent that these allegations may be construed to assert that 

Plaintiff was “disabled,” as defined by the Plan, at the times relevant to this action, they are 

denied. 

71. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 71 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that Prudential’s clinical team did not examine the Plaintiff, and that the 

members of the clinical team are employed by Prudential. To the extent that the balance of the 

allegations of Paragraph 71 of the Complaint constitute assertions of fact, the allegations are 

denied. To the extent that the balance of the allegations of Paragraph 71 of the Complaint 

constitute conclusions of law, or assertions of the personal opinion of Plaintiff’s counsel 

regarding the relative merits of reviewing physicians versus treating physicians, no response is 

required thereto. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 71 of the Complaint purport to 

impute liability to LTD Plan Defendants, the allegations are denied. 

72. LTD Plan Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 72 of the Complaint. 

73. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 73 are narrative, or purport to 

assert conclusions of law, no response is required thereto. Further, to the extent that the 

allegations of paragraph 73 purport to assert the subjective opinion of Plaintiff’s counsel, no 

response is required thereto. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 73 of the Complaint 

purport to impute liability to the LTD Plan Defendants, they are denied. 

Case 1:07-cv-03210-PKC Document 13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 17 of 23
18 

74. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 74 are narrative, or purport to 

assert conclusions of law, no response is required thereto. Further, to the extent that the 

allegations of paragraph 74 purport to assert the subjective opinion of Plaintiff’s counsel, no 

response is required thereto. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 74 of the Complaint 

purport to impute liability to the LTD Plan Defendants, they are denied. 

75. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 75 of the Complaint purport to 

impute liability to the LTD Plan Defendants, they are denied. To the extent that the provisions 

of the Plan speak for themselves, no response to the allegations of Paragraph 75 of the Complaint 

is required. 

76. LTD Plan Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 76 of the Complaint. 

77. LTD Plan Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 77 of the Complaint to 

the extent that they constitute assertions of fact. Further answering the allegations of Paragraph 

77 of the Complaint, to the extent that these allegations purport to assert conclusions of law, no 

response is required thereto. 

78. LTD Plan Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 78 of the Complaint. 

79. LTD Plan Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 79 of the Complaint to 

the extent that they constitute assertions of fact. Further answering the allegations of Paragraph 

79 of the Complaint, to the extent that these allegations purport to assert conclusions of law, no 

response is required thereto. 

80. LTD Plan Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 80 of the Complaint. 

81. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 81 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that Prudential is the insurer of the Plan, and the payor of benefits under 

the Plan. LTD Plan Defendants deny the balance of the allegations of Paragraph 81 of the 

Case 1:07-cv-03210-PKC Document 13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 18 of 23
19 

Complaint. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 81 of the Complaint purport to impute 

liability to the LTD Plan Defendants, these allegations are denied. To the extent that the 

allegations of Paragraph 81 of the Complaint constitute conclusions of law, no response is 

required thereto. 

82. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 82 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that Prudential is the Claims Administrator for the Plan. To the extent 

that the balance of the allegations of Paragraph 82 of the Complaint purport to assert conclusions 

of law, no response is required thereto. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 82 of the 

Complaint purport to impute liability to the LTD Plan Defendants, they are denied. 

83. The allegations of Paragraph 83 of the Complaint constitute conclusions of law, 

and therefore no response is required thereto. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 83 

of the Complaint purport to impute liability to the LTD Plan Defendants, they are denied. 

84. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 84 of the Complaint purport to 

impute liability to the LTD Plan Defendants, they are denied. The allegations of Paragraph 84 of 

the Complaint constitute conclusions of law, and therefore no response is required thereto. 

85. LTD Plan Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 85 of the Complaint to 

the extent that these allegations constitute assertions of fact. To the extent that the allegations of 

Paragraph 85 of the Complaint purport to assert conclusions of law, no response is required 

thereto. 

86. The allegations of Paragraph 86 of the Complaint are denied. 

87. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 87 of the Complaint purport to 

impute liability to the LTD Plan Defendants, they are denied. The allegations of Paragraph 87 of 

the Complaint constitute conclusions of law, and therefore no response is required thereto. 

Case 1:07-cv-03210-PKC Document 13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 19 of 23
20 

88. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 88 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that it rendered the claim decisions at issue in the instant action, and that 

it is the payor of benefits under the Plan. LTD Plan Defendants deny the balance of the 

allegations of Paragraph 88 of the Complaint. 

89. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 89 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants admit only that Prudential rendered the claim decisions at issue in the instant action, 

and that Prudential is the payor of benefits under the Plan. To the extent that the allegations of 

Paragraph 89 of the Complaint purport to impute liability to Prudential, they are denied. 

90. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 90 of the Complaint purport to 

impute liability to the LTD Plan Defendants, they are denied. To the extent that the allegations 

of Paragraph 90 of the Complaint constitute conclusions of law, no response is required thereto. 

91. LTD Plan Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 91 of the Complaint. 

92. LTD Plan Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 92 of the Complaint. 

93. LTD Plan Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 93 of the Complaint. 

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 

FOR MEDICAL BENEFITS

94. Answering the allegations of Paragraph 94 of the Complaint, LTD Plan 

Defendants repeat their responses to the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 93 of the Complaint 

as if fully set forth at length herein. 

95. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 95 of the Complaint are directed at 

parties other than the Prudential, no response is required thereto. To the extent that the 

allegations of Paragraph 95 of the Complaint purport to impute liability to Prudential, these 

allegations are denied. 

Case 1:07-cv-03210-PKC Document 13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 20 of 23
21 

96. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 96 of the Complaint are directed at 

parties other than Prudential, no response is required thereto. Further answering the allegations 

of Paragraph 96 of the Complaint, to the extent that these allegations purport to assert that 

Plaintiff’s LTD benefits were wrongfully terminated, these allegations are denied. 

97. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 97 of the Complaint are directed at 

parties other than Prudential, no response is required thereto. Prudential denies the allegations of 

Paragraph 97 of the Complaint to the extent that these allegations purport to assert that Plaintiff 

was “disabled,” as defined by the Plan, at the times relevant to this action, and to the extent that 

that these allegations purport to assert that Plaintiff was entitled to any LTD benefits under the Plan 

in excess of those that she received. 

WHEREFORE, The Prudential Insurance Company of America, Rheem Manufacturing 

Company, and the Rheem Manufacturing Company Long Term Disability Plan pray that 

judgment be entered dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff’s Complaint against them in its entirety 

and awarding them attorneys’ fees, costs of suit, interest, and such other and further relief as the 

Court deems just and proper. 

SEPARATE DEFENSES

FIRST SEPARATE DEFENSE

The Complaint and each claim for relief alleged therein, fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted. 

SECOND SEPARATE DEFENSE

The Complaint may be time-barred, in whole or part, by the applicable statute of 

limitations. 

Case 1:07-cv-03210-PKC Document 13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 21 of 23
22 

THIRD SEPARATE DEFENSE

The Complaint may be barred insofar as Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative 

remedies under the Policy at issue. 

FOURTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

The Complaint may be barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrines of laches, 

waiver and estoppel. 

FIFTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

The Complaint may be barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands. 

SIXTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

Plaintiff's claims may be barred or limited by the terms, conditions, definitions, and other 

provisions of the Policy in question and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as 

amended, 29 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. 

SEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

Plaintiff may have breached the terms, conditions and provisions of the Policy in question, 

thereby barring Plaintiff from any recovery under the Policy. 

EIGHTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

 To the extent the Plaintiff is seeking extra contractual or punitive damages, they are 

barred, in whole or in part, by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 

29 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. 

NINTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

Under the Policy at issue, Prudential is vested with discretion in the administering of 

benefits for long term disability. The decision to deny benefits was based upon the sound 

exercise of that discretion. 

Case 1:07-cv-03210-PKC Document 13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 22 of 23
23 

TENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

To the extent that the Plaintiff failed to mitigate, minimize, or avoid, any damages 

allegedly sustained, any recovery against Defendants must be reduced by the amount attributable 

to said failure. 

ELEVENTH SEPARATE DEFENSE

Plaintiff’s claims, if any, are barred because the LTD Plan Defendants acted in good faith 

and without malice or intent to cause damage. 

 WHEREFORE, The Prudential Insurance Company of America, Rheem 

Manufacturing Company, and the Rheem Manufacturing Company Long Term Disability Plan 

pray that judgment be entered dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff’s Complaint against them in its 

entirety and awarding them attorneys’ fees, costs of suit, interest, and such other and further 

relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

 CUYLER BURK, P.C. 

 Attorneys for Defendants, 

The Prudential Insurance Company of America 

And as to the First Cause of Action Only: Rheem 

Manufacturing Company Long Term Disability 

Plan, and Rheem Manufacturing Company 

 By: _s/ Stephen D. Cuyler_(SDC 7705)_________

 Stephen D. Cuyler (SDC 7705) 

Dated: June 21, 2007

Case 1:07-cv-03210-PKC Document 13 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 23 of 23