NOT FOR PUB LIC ATION UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
W ILLIAM B AR

NETT, ) No. 13-16925

) Pla intiff - Appe lla

nt, ) D.C . No. 1:12-c v-00130-LJO-SAB

) v. ) M EM OR A NDUM * ) SOUTHER

N C ALIFOR

NIA ) EDISON C OM PANY LONG TER M ) DISAB ILITY PLAN, ) ) De fe nda nt - Appe lle e . ) )

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Lawre nc e J. O’ Ne ill, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 19, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ a

nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SC HEINDLIN, ** Distric t Judge
. W illia m B arne tt a p p e a l s the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt in fa vor of the Southe rn C a lifornia

Edison C om

pa ny Long Te rm

Disa bility Pla n (“ the Pla

n” ). The 

# FIL ED
D EC 07 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** T he Honora

ble Shira Ann Sc he indlin, Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.Plan

stoppe d pa

y i ng long te rm

disa bility be ne fits to B a

rne tt a fte r it de te rm ine d tha t he wa s no longe r disa

ble d within the

m e aning of thePla

n. W e va c a te and re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. The Pla n g a ve its B e n e fits C om

m itte e 1 disc re tiona

ry a uthority to c onstrue , inte rpre t, a

nd a dm iniste r its provisions, a nd to “ gran t or de ny

be ne fits.” The distric t c o urt a

nd we re vie wtha

t de te rm i nation for a

buse of disc re tion. Se e Montour v . Hartford Life & Ac c ide nt Ins. C o. , 588 F.3d 623, 629 (9th C ir. 2009). 2 That is, we re vie w to a ssure ourse lve s tha t the de te rm ination wa s re a s ona b le
. Se e Day v . AT& T Disability

Inc ome Plan , 698 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th C ir. 2012). Put
anothe r way , we m

ust a ssure ourse lve s tha

t the de te rm ination wa s not there sult of le ga l e rror, or of c l e arly e rrone ous fa c t de t e rm i nat ions. Se e P a c . Shore s Hosp. v
. Unite d Be hav ioral He alth , 764 F.3d 1030, 1042 (9th C ir. 2014); Day , 698 F.3d a t 1096; se e also Unite d State s v . Hink son , 585 F.3d 1247, 1261–62 (9th C i r. 2009) (e n ba nc ). A. B arne tt a sse rts tha

t his LTD be ne fits c ould not bete rm inate d unle ss
and until he

wa s offe re d a

job by the c om pa ny . W e disa g re e . He re lie s on a

1 The c om m itte e de le gate d its a

u thority to Se dgwic k , C M S (“ the Adm inistra

tor” ), a s it wa s e ntitle d to do.
2 The distric t c ourt de te rm ine d tha t the Adm inistra

tor wa s not la

boring unde r a c onflic t of inte re st, a

nd B a rne tt ha s not a

ppe a l e d tha

t de te rm ination. 2pa

ra gra ph in the Pla

n whic h sta

te s tha t : You will a lso be e ligiblefor LTD be ne fits if y ou be c o m e a pprove d for Soc ia l Se c urity Disa bility Insura nc e B e ne fits within 12 m

onths of y our initia l de n ia l of LTD with a n e ffe c tive date within y our qua lify ing pe riod. Howe v e r, if the c ompany offe rs y ou a

re a sona ble job . . . , y o u m

ust a c c e pt the job . . . or y our LTD be ne fits will e nd a nd y our e m

ploy m e nt will be te rm inate d
. In pa rtic ula r, B arne tt foc use s on the se c ond se nte nc e of tha t pa ra gra p h. Howe ve r, that se n te nc e , ta

ke n by itse l f, doe s not provide tha t the be ne fits will c ontinue until a
re a s ona ble job is offe re d; it m e re ly indic a te s tha

t the be ne fits will e nd if the offe r of a re a sona b le job is not a c c e pte d. M ore ove r, the se c ond se nte nc e c annot be re a d
a s se pa ra t e from the first se nte n c e , whic h de sc ribe s a pe rson who obta ins be ne fits in the pa rtic ula r situa tion whe re he wa s initia lly de nie d those be ne fits a nd is gran te d Soc ia l Se c urity

be ne fits within a

unique ly c i rc um sc ribe d pe riod. To the
e xte nt tha t the provisions, ta

ke n toge the r, inje c te d som e am biguity into the Plan,
re solution of tha

t a m biguity by re a ding the two se nte nc e s toge t he r in tha t m anne r did not “ ‘ [c onstrue ] provisions of the pla n in a wa y tha t c onflic ts with the

pla in la ngua ge of the pla

n.’ ” Pac . Shore

s Hosp. , 764 F.3d a

t 1042. Thus, the Adm inistra

tor did not a

buse its disc re tion whe n it te rm inate d B arne tt’ s be ne fits de spite the fa c t tha

t the c om pa ny ha d not offe re d B arne tt a job whic h he de c line d. B
. The pa

rtie s a gre e tha

t unde r the Pla

n provisions tha

t a pplie d to 3B arne tt, “ [d] isa ble d m e ans tha

t, due to illne s s or injury , y ou a re una ble to pe rform

. . . a ny re a sona b le job for the c ompany

a fte r two y e ars.” M ore ove r, “ [a ] re a sona ble job is a ny ga inful a c tivity

in a ny job c la ssific at ion for whic h y ou a re or m ay
re a s ona bly be c om e fitte d

by e duc a tion, tra ining, or e xpe rie nc e .” And tha t job m ust be loc a te d

“ a t any c o mpany

within the

z one . . . in whic h y ou we re working on y our la st da

y a t work.” Afte r our c are ful re vie wof the re c ord, we are una ble to sa y that the Adm i nistra

tor a buse d its disc re tion whe n it de t e rm i ne d tha t the re wa s a
re a s ona ble job tha

t B arne tt c ould pe rform
. 3 Howe ve r, the Adm inistra tor did a buse its disc re t ion whe n it im

plic i tly de te rm ine d tha

t the job in que s tion wa s within the prope r z one . Sim

ply put, the re wa s no e vide nc e of the z one in whic h the
re a s ona ble job wa s loc a te d , nor wa s the re e xplic it e vide nc e of the z o ne in whic h B arne tt worke d . As a

re sult, thete rm ination of be ne fits wa s im prope r a nd we m ust
va c a te the distric t c o urt’ s de te rm ination a n d re m a n d for furthe r proc e e dings. 4

3 The Adm inistra

tor wa s e ntitle d to re ly

upon the voc a tiona l e xpe rt’ s re port that B arne tt c ould pe rform

a job se t forth in the“ libra ry of job de s c riptions for Southe rn C a lifornia

Edison” without a c c om

m odations. Furthe rm o re , suffic ie nt c onside ra tion wa s give n to the fa c t tha t B arne tt ha d re c e ive d a

gran t of disa

bility be ne fits from

the Soc ia l Se c urity

Adm inistra

tion.
4 W e have not ove rlooke d B arne tt’ s c la im that the Pla n is bound by the grant of disa bility be ne fits from

the Soc ia l Se c urity Adm inistra t ion. Howe ve r, the re is no a uthority to support tha

t c la im ; inde e d the a

u thoritie s are to the c ontra ry . Se e Me t ro. Life Ins. C o. v . Gle nn , 554 U.S. 105, 118, 128 S. Ct. 2343, 2352, 171 L. Ed. (c ontinue d...) 4VAC ATED a nd REM ANDED. The pa rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c o sts on
a ppe a l.

4 (...c ontinue d) 2d 299 (2008); Montour , 588 F.3d a t 635; se ealso Madde n v . ITT Long Te rm Disability Plan for Salarie

d Emps. , 914 F.2d 1279, 1286 (9th C ir. 1990).

5