Defendants Knight-Ballou, Stalk, and Evans were added as 1

parties primarily as part of a RICO claim, see 18 U.S.C. § 1961-

1968 (2000 & Supp. 2005), that was later dismissed by the court. 

See Few v. Liberty Mut. Ins. et. al., No. 06-cv-427-SM (D.N.H.

October 11, 2007); Few v. Liberty Mut. Ins. et. al., No. 06-cv427-SM slip. op. at 16-19 (D.N.H. May 16, 2007). The court

notes, without deciding, that had the plaintiff’s ERISA claim

survived summary judgment, it is unlikely that it could

successfully be brought against Knight-Ballou, Stalk, or Evans. 

See, e.g., Livick v. The Gillette Co., 524 F.3d 24, 29 (1st Cir.

2008) (discussing contours of functional fiduciary status);

Beddall v. State Street Bank and Trust Co., 137 F.3d 12, 18 (1st

Cir. 1998).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Sharon Few

v. Civil No. 1:06-cv-00427-JL

Opinion No. 2009 DNH 027

Liberty Mutual

Insurance Company et al.

O R D E R

In this action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement

Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001- 1461 (2000 & Supp. 2005),

pro se plaintiff Sharon Few seeks to reinstate benefits under a

life insurance policy she claims were wrongfully terminated by

defendants Liberty Mutual Life Insurance and Liberty Life

Assurance Company of Boston (collectively “Liberty Life”) and

certain Liberty Life employees, namely, Jolene Knight-Ballou,

Linda Stalk, and Wayne Evans. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132. The 1

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 110 Filed 03/19/09 Page 1 of 29
The court notes that the plaintiff did not file a motion 2

for judgment on the administrative record. See L.R. 9.4(c).

2

defendants have filed a “Motion for Summary Judgment on the

Administrative Record,” see generally, L.R. 9.4(c)(1996), 2

contending that their actions with respect to the life insurance

policy were valid. This court has jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C.

§ 1132(e) (ERISA). After due consideration of the record, and a

hearing on the merits, the court grants the defendants’ motion.

I. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD

In ERISA cases where a claimant seeks review of a denial of

benefits, the role of summary judgment is limited. Orndorf v.

Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 404 F.3d 510, 517 (1st Cir. 2005); see

Bard v. Boston Shipping Ass’n, 471 F.3d 229, 235 (1st Cir. 2006);

cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The standard of review in an ERISA case

differs from review in an ordinary civil case, where summary

judgment serves as a procedural device designed to screen out

cases that present no trial-worthy issues. See Leahy v. Raytheon

Co., 315 F.3d 11, 17 (1st Cir. 2002); Orndorf, 404 F.3d at 517. 

Because the focus of the court’s review in an ERISA case is the

final administrative decision, “the district court sits more as

an appellate tribunal than as a trial court.” Leahy, 315 F.3d at

18. Therefore, “[i]n the ERISA context, summary judgment is

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 110 Filed 03/19/09 Page 2 of 29
“[T]he use of summary judgment in this way is proper 3

regardless of whether . . . review of the ERISA decision maker’s

decision is de novo or deferential.” Orndorf, 404 F.3d at 517.

3

merely the vehicle for deciding the case; the factual

determination of eligibility for benefits is decided solely on

the administrative record, and the non-moving party is not

entitled to the usual inferences in its favor.” Bard, 471 F.3d

at 235 (quotations omitted).3

The Supreme Court, in Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch,

489 U.S. 101 (1989), set forth a series of principles to guide

courts in ERISA benefits cases. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v.

Glenn, 128 S.Ct. 2343, 2347-48 (2008). “[A] denial of benefits

challenged under § 1132(a)(1)(B) is to be reviewed under a de

novo standard unless the benefit plan gives the administrator or

fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for

benefits or to construe the terms of the plan.” Firestone Tire

and Rubber, Inc., 489 U.S. at 115. The defendants concede that

their decision is properly reviewed by this court under a de novo

standard of review. See Def’s Mot. for Summ. J. 6, n.3; see

generally, Firestone Tire and Rubber, Inc., 489 U.S. at 115

(applicability of de novo standard of review); cf. Glenn, 128

S.Ct. at 2348 (determining whether deferential standard of review

applies). Under the de novo standard, the court must determine,

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 110 Filed 03/19/09 Page 3 of 29
4

after a full review of the administrative record, whether the

administrative decision was correct. See, e.g. Orndorf, 404 F.3d

at 518. Although the de novo standard allows the court to

substitute its judgment for that of the plan administrator, the

claimant still carries the burden of demonstrating that she is

disabled within the terms of the plan. See id. at 519; see

generally, Terry v. Bayer Corp., 145 F.3d 28, 34 (1st Cir. 1998). 

In sum,

de novo review generally consists of the court’s

independent weighing of the facts and opinions in [the]

record to determine whether the claimant has met [her]

burden of showing [she] is disabled within the meaning

of the policy. While the court does not ignore facts

in the record, the court grants no deference to

administrators’ opinions or conclusions based on these

facts.

Orndorf, 404 F.3d at 518 (citation omitted).

To the extent a court must interpret plan language, “[b]oth

trust and contract principles apply . . . .” Rodriguez-Abreu v.

Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 986 F.2d 580, 585 (1st Cir. 1993). 

“When interpreting the provisions of an ERISA benefit plan, we

use federal substantive law including the common-sense canons of

contract interpretation.” Id. (quotations omitted). The terms

of the plan, therefore, are enforced according to its plain and

unambiguous meaning, and whether the plan term is ambiguous is a

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 110 Filed 03/19/09 Page 4 of 29
At times the plaintiff has disputed whether the policy in 4

the record was the exact policy she was subject to and has

alleged that the defendants have forwarded different versions of

that policy to her. In the course of its de novo review, the

court was careful to refer to the group life insurance policy

carrying the same policy number as that noted on paperwork

completed by the plaintiff when making her original claim under

the policy in 1992. 

5

question of law for the court. Balestracci v. NSTAR Elec. and

Gas Corp., 449 F.3d 224, 230 (1st Cir. 2006). 

II. BACKGROUND

This court’s review is limited to the administrative record,

see, e.g., Orndorf, 404 F.3d at 517, 519, and because review is

de novo, this court’s focus is directed to the record relevant to

the merits of Liberty Life’s denial of benefits. Few was

employed as a “retro-rater” at Liberty Mutual in the late 1980s

and was a participant in a group life insurance policy4

(“policy”) sponsored by company. Defendant Liberty Life

Assurance Company was the insurer and claims administrator under

the policy. 

The terms of the policy include a “waiver of premium”

benefit whereby the policy premiums will be waived during a

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 110 Filed 03/19/09 Page 5 of 29
Few, in various filings with this court, references an 5

early version of the policy, which differs substantially from the

1980 amended version. As discussed in detail in Part III-A

infra, the court reviewed all the relevant plan documents and

concludes that the applicable waiver of premium benefit provision

is the amended version. Cf. Giannone v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 311

F. Supp.2d 168, 176 (D. Mass. 2004) (the rule in an ERISA case is

that courts will consider all relevant plan documents); citing

Bond v. Cerner Corp., 309 F.3d 1064, 1067-68 (8th Cir. 2002).

6

period of total disability on the part of the policyholder. The

relevant terms of the policy, as amended on July 1, 1980, state: 5

Waiver of Premium Benefit - If due proof (herein called

‘initial proof’) is furnished to the Company that an

Employee, while insured under the policy and before his

or her sixtieth birthday, shall have become totally

disabled after June 30, 1980, and that such disability

has existed continuously for at least six months, the

Company will waive further payment of premium on the

Employee’s insurance.

Continued waiver of premium shall be subject to (a)

annual submission of due proof of the continued

existence of total disability within three months

preceding each anniversary of receipt of initial proof

and (b) submission by the Employee to examination by a

physician, as provided below. Waiver of premium will

terminate upon the earliest of (a) failure to submit

the required proof of the continued existence of total

disability, (b) failure to submit to examination by a

physician, as provided below, and (c) cessation of

total disability; . . . .

The Company shall have the right to have a physician it

designates examine the Employee whenever it may

reasonably require. 

In 1992, Few requested that Liberty Life waive payment of

her life insurance premium. She also submitted a proof of

disability form, completed by Dr. Maria Gatacales in April 1992,

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 110 Filed 03/19/09 Page 6 of 29
Record at 649. 6

Record at 101. 7

Record at 425-30. 8

Record at 825 - It is uncertain whether this happened in 9

1999 or 2000, but in an August 2001 letter, Few states that “last

year” she made this request.

Record at 1330. 10

Record at 88. 11

7

indicating that Few had been totally disabled since 1990 due to a

major depressive episode, mild adjustment disorder, and a

“dysthymic disorder.” 

6

Liberty Life approved Few’s application for waiver of the

premium benefit in June 1992. It continued to pay the waiver of 7

premium benefit until July 2005, when Liberty Life terminated

Few’s policy. It appears that Liberty Life routinely paid the 8

premium benefit through 2000 , when Few requested a copy of her 9

policy, and asserted that she was due $25,000 under its terms. 

In June 2000, Liberty Life informed Few that it was reviewing her

waiver of premium claim and that she would be required to update

her medical information. When Few contacted Liberty Life and 10

asked if she could submit a social security disability approval

letter as proof, Liberty Life informed her that it required more

direct medical documentation of her disability. Few eventually 11

submitted a proof of disability form, completed by Dr. Hugh

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 110 Filed 03/19/09 Page 7 of 29
Record at 836. 12

Record at 1328. 13

Record at 822-23; 825-26. 14

Id. 15

8

Lurie, stating that she was totally disabled because of major

recurring depression. Liberty Life approved her claim for a 12

waiver of premium benefit in December 2000, but informed Few that

she would be contacted “on an annual basis for updated medical

documentation to support your continued disability.” 

13

Liberty Life continued to pay the waiver of premium benefit

through 2004. During this time, however, Few became increasingly

resistant to providing medical records to Liberty Life,14

informing company representatives at various times that she

believed that Liberty Life’s requests were unreasonable, illegal,

and constituted harassment. In August 2002, she completed 15

Liberty Life’s “Combined Questionnaire” form and attached a

lengthy typed memorandum in which she stated that she had

recently been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and describing

numerous physical impairments, including, but not limited to:

severe physical pain when sitting, standing, lifting and walking,

sensitivity to clothing, difficulty driving, back, neck, and

shoulder pain, extreme fatigue, inability to concentrate,

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 110 Filed 03/19/09 Page 8 of 29
Record at 806-810.

16

Record at 810. 17

Record at 815-817. 18

Record at 816. 19

Record at 815. 20

9

sensitivity to heat and sunlight, memory loss, depression, and

headaches. She continued to assert that Liberty Life was 16

making unreasonable demands for information and “I consider this

harassment and Liberty is jeopardizing my health.” She also 17

provided attending physician forms completed by Dr. William

Sheremata, a neurologist, in July 2002 indicating that Few

suffered from multiple sclerosis, memory loss, and depression.18

His report indicated that she had a “Class 5” (severe limitation)

physical impairment and “Class 4” (marked limitations) mental

impairment. Few, who apparently was present when the forms were

completed, noted on the section of the form requesting copies of

office notes, test results, and other medical records, that “I do

not authorize that this information be provided to anyone.”19

She further refused to assent to the standard medical records

release form. 

20

In response, Liberty Life informed Few that it needed such

information to evaluate her disability claim and Dr. Sheremata’s

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 110 Filed 03/19/09 Page 9 of 29
Record at 726-728. 21

Record at 727. 22

Record at 672. Specifically, Few had not forwarded Dr. 23

Sheremata’s medical records and provided only her social security

approval letter.

10

diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. It also noted that it required

updated information regarding that diagnosis of depression that

had been the basis of disability up to that time. Liberty Life 21

also informed Few that if it did not receive the proper forms and

underlying documentation from Dr. Sheremata, “your claim may be

closed for failure to provide proof for your waiver of premium

benefit.”22

Liberty Life and Few continued to wrangle over forms and

documentation through July 2004 when Liberty Life informed Few

that it would continue to approve her benefit for that year even

though it concluded that Few had failed to provide the company

with sufficient medical information to support the multiple

sclerosis diagnosis and continued disability. It informed Few 23

that it would request medical updates on an annual basis

beginning February 2005. 

Liberty Life, on February 28, 2005, sent Few a number of new

forms, including a medical records release form and medical

questionnaire. It informed Few that it had scheduled an

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 110 Filed 03/19/09 Page 10 of 29
Record t 586-87. 24

Record 546-557. 25

Record at 554.

26

Record at 555. 27

11

independent medical exam for her, explaining that if she did not

authorize release of her medical records, the scheduled

examination would proceed only with the records on file at

Liberty Life. Few did not provide any additional medical 24

records, but did attend an independent medical examination with

Dr. Jonathan Amy, a board certified neurologist, in April 2005. 

Dr. Amy issued a report stating that although he could not rule 25

out multiple sclerosis based on the limited medical information

available to him, he found Few’s symptoms “quite vague” and that

they did not strongly support that diagnosis. He noted that

“[i]t would be essential, in order to evaluate this any further,

to have access to her MRI scans and the results of any other

previous neurological evaluations.” He also opined that Few 26

was able to “perform walking activities, sitting activities, and

standing activities in an unrestricted fashion,” and because her

psychological status appeared normal, “there is [no] medical

reason why Ms. Few would be unable to return to work.” Dr. Amy 27

also recommended that Few undergo a functional capacity

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 110 Filed 03/19/09 Page 11 of 29
Record at 555. 28

Record at 540. 29

Record at 93. The policy provision Few relied on was 30

superceded by the 1980 amendment to the policy that was in effect

when she was an employee of Liberty Mutual. See infra Part IIIA.

Record at 406-407. 31

Record at 1043-45. 32

12

examination (“FCE”) to better evaluate her “ability to work, as

well as any physical restrictions and/or limitations . . . .”28

A few weeks later, Liberty Life attempted to schedule for

Few an independent psychiatric evaluation (“IPE”) in order to

evaluate her claim of depression. Few objected on the basis of 29

her reading of the policy, which she understood to authorize only

one doctor visit per year. By a letter dated June 7, 2005, 30

Liberty Life directed Few to the policy provision set forth

above, and again requested that she submit the proper medical

forms and schedule an IPE. In that letter, Liberty Life again

notified Few that failure to update her medical information would

result in cancellation of the waiver of premium benefit. Few 31

replied to Liberty Life with two letters regarding her situation,

dated June 14th and 15th. In the earlier letter, she refused 32

to attend any more appointments made by Liberty Life or to

authorize the release of any further medical records. She also

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 110 Filed 03/19/09 Page 12 of 29
Liberty Life claims that defendant Stalk, in a phone 33

conversation with Few in June 2005, asked Few to provide records

from the hematologist and other physicians Few claimed to be

consulting at the time and Few refused. 

Record at 1045. 34

Record at 497-500. 35

Record at 499. 36

Record at 500. 37

13

stated that she was now consulting with a hematologist about a

potential blood disorder, and had developed diarrhea and 33

arthritis. She further alleged that Liberty Life was “inflicting

undue emotional stress upon me, which is causing unnecessary

relapses of my condition and adding some new symptoms, such as,

heart palpitations, anxiety attacks, nightmares, and sleepless

nights. In the latter letter, she wrote that she believed 34 35

that Liberty Life’s demands for information were excessive and

that she had sufficiently complied with the requirements of the

policy. She stated that “I will not at this time furnish any

other documents to Liberty Mutual.” Further, she reiterated 36

her refusal to “see anymore doctors this year because it is my

understanding that Liberty is limited to how many appointments

they can force upon me, and their request is outside of all legal

limits.” Few refused to provide any further medical 37

information to the company, even though she stated in her June

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 110 Filed 03/19/09 Page 13 of 29
Id. 38

Record at 404-405. 39

Record at 465. 40

Record at 466-67. 41

14

15th letter that she was currently under the care of “several

doctors.” Liberty Life responded by letter on June 20th that 38

failure to update her medical information and attend additional

medical examinations would result in loss of her benefit.39

That June, Liberty Life also referred the file to Dr. Robert

Millstein, an internist, for review. Dr. Millstein’s report

essentially concluded that based on the limited record before him

(summarized above) and the relative lack of current medical

information, Few’s claims of disability could not be

established. For example, he summarized both Dr. Amy’s and Dr. 40

Sheremata’s apparently conflicting assessments of Few’s multiple

sclerosis diagnosis and stated that because of limited medical

information, Dr. Sheremata’s diagnosis could not be confirmed

because although the “available records describe a variety of

symptoms, which are nonspecific but which could be symptoms

associated with multiple sclerosis,” the record did not contain

even the most basic diagnostic data. He opined that the 41

limited record did not support Few’s claims of the presence of a

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 110 Filed 03/19/09 Page 14 of 29
Record at 465. 42

Id. 43

Record at 426. 44

15

disabling cognitive impairment, migraines, or hives. He noted

that he was unable to evaluate Few’s claims of disabling fatigue

and physical pain in the absence of records from her primary care

physician or neurologist. Finally, with respect to Few’s claim 42

of disabling depression (the medical condition that served as the

basis for the initial finding of disability) Dr. Millstein

concluded that:

Although assessment of impairment due to depression is

outside my area of expertise, the available medical

information does not include support for the claimant

receiving current psychiatric care or the use of

antidepressants. Therefore, it would appear unlikely

that depression would cause impairment which would

preclude full-time work.43

Liberty Life subsequently informed Few that effective July

1, 2005, it was cancelling Few’s waiver of premium benefit. In

its letter, Liberty Life stated that although Few had provided

proof of disability in the past, “proof is required on an annual

basis.” It noted her refusal to provide updated documentation 44

and attend further medical appointments. It stated that “[b]ased

on the IME completed by Dr. Amy, a record review by a consulting

internist, and all other available records, we have determined

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 110 Filed 03/19/09 Page 15 of 29
Id. 45

Record at 427. 46

Record at 428. 47

Record at 324-345. The additional documentation included a 48

proof of disability benefits letter from the social security

administration dated August 2005, office notes and lab reports

from a hematology/oncology practice generated in 2005, and

various emergency room records and lab reports dated 1991-1993. 

16

that there is not sufficient medical documentation to support

your continued eligibility under the waiver of premium

provision.” Liberty Life then summarized the findings of both 45

Dr. Amy and Dr. Millstein, and Few’s refusal to attend follow-up

appointments or provide any medical records from her current

doctors. Liberty Life concluded that: 46

the Policy requires annual submission of due proof of

the continued existence of total disability and

submission to examination by a physician whenever

Liberty may reasonably require. You have not submitted

recent medical information, have refused to attend a

further required examination, and have failed to return

the required forms within the time provided. 

Therefore, due to the lack of medical documentation to

support disability, we must deny your claim for the

continued waiver of premium benefit effective July 1,

2005. Should you provide us with documentation in

support of your claim and agree to submit to a further

medical examination, we would reconsider this

determination.47

Few appealed Liberty Life’s decision and submitted

additional documentation and an affidavit in support of her

appeal. Liberty Life submitted the additional information to 48

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 110 Filed 03/19/09 Page 16 of 29
Record at 442. 49

record at 437. 50

Record at 438. 51

17

Dr. Millstein for review, and subsequently denied Few’s appeal. 

After review of the new information provided by Few, Liberty Life

concluded that: “While we recognize that you continue to report

impairment associated with fatigue, pain, depression, memory

disturbance and multiple sclerosis, the totality of medical and

vocational documentation reviewed does not substantiate that you

are disabled from performing other occupations within your

vocational capacity.”49

Specifically, it relied on Dr. Millstein’s conclusion in an

October 2005 report that “[t]he additional information, which is

very limited, does not support the claimant’s report of total

disability,” and his conclusions from the June 2005 report. In 50

his October report, Millstein noted that the diagnosis of

multiple sclerosis and resulting functional impairment still

could not be assessed on the basis of the additional information

proffered by Few and in the absence of any further records from

Dr. Sheremata. He noted that Few submitted evidence from 1991 of

an allergic reaction, but that otherwise the “record does not

support ongoing episodes of generalized allergic reactions.”51

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 110 Filed 03/19/09 Page 17 of 29
Record at 341 (copy of test result); 438-39. Dr. Millstein 52

also noted that records from 1993 did not reveal the presence of

coronary artery disease at that time.

Record at 439. 53

18

With respect to the potential blood disorder, Dr. Millstein

reviewed the data and office notes from Few’s hematologist and

noted that “although [Few’s test results] can evolve into [a

serious blood disorder] the record does not support impairment at

present from this asymptomatic condition.” Dr. Millstein also 52

stated that the hematologist’s notes revealed that a standard

performance test used to assess a patient’s functional

capabilities categorized Few as fully ambulatory, (“performance

status 1”). He stated that because Few had reported being

fatigued, “she was categorized as having a performance status of

1 instead of 0 (asymptomatic).” Dr. Millstein called into

question Few’s claim of total disability, noting that “[a]

performance status of 2 equates to a symptomatic patient who is

bedridden less than 50% of the day,” thus implying that her

hematologist concluded that she was not even partially

bedridden.53

Liberty Life reviewed its denial of the waiver of premium

benefit two additional times in January and February 2006 after

Few filed a complaint with the New Hampshire Department of

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 110 Filed 03/19/09 Page 18 of 29
Record at 229-236. 54

Record at 168-69; 206-207. The court notes that an initial 55

set of documents were submitted to Dr. Millstein for review.

Record at 208-211.

Record at 168-244. 56

Record at 206-211; 1643-44. 57

19

Insurance. Liberty Life agreed to review documents provided to 54

the insurance department. In both cases, Few provided little 55

in the way of additional documentation from her physicians, and 56

Liberty Life refused to reconsider her appeal.57

Few, a resident of Virginia, eventually filed a thirteen

count complaint in the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Virginia. That Court determined that venue

was proper in this court, and the matter was transferred here. 

The only remaining count now before the court is Count 2,

asserting a cause of action under ERISA for denial of benefits. 

The defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment on Count

2, and for the reasons set forth below, that motion is granted.

III. ANALYSIS

Liberty Life contends that it is entitled to summary

judgment because Few failed to satisfy her burden of establishing

that she was entitled to the waiver of premium benefit. 

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 110 Filed 03/19/09 Page 19 of 29
20

Specifically, it argues that termination of the benefit was

appropriate because Few: (1) refused to submit to reasonable

requests for medical exams as required by the policy, and (2)

failed to provide “due proof” of her total disability. 

A. Physician exams

The court first addresses Liberty Life’s contention that it

was justified in cancelling Few’s benefit because she refused to

submit to certain medical exams. As a preliminary matter, the

court must confront a dispute that lies at the heart of the

tension between the parties. Few and Liberty Life consistently

disagreed over the applicable policy language regarding the

insurer’s right under the policy to request that the insured

visit a physician. Specifically, Few insisted, relying on what

she believed was applicable policy language, that Liberty Life

only had the right to request one doctor visit per year. Few

maintained that the policy stated that “[t]he Company shall have

the right to have a physician it designates examine the Employee

whenever it may reasonably require during [her] disability, but

not more often than once a year after the Employee’s insurance

has been continued for two full years under this provision.”

Liberty Life, relying on the policy language set forth in Part

II, supra, insisted that under the contract it could request an

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 110 Filed 03/19/09 Page 20 of 29
Although the issue of whether the rule of contra 58

proferentem--that ambiguous terms in an insurance contract should

21

exam when it reasonably required. The court concludes, after

review of all plan documents, that Liberty Life’s reading of the

policy was correct. The policy provision relied upon by Few can

be found within the policy documents under the heading “Permanent

Total Disability Benefit.” That provision was specifically

superceded by a comprehensive amendment to the plan in 1980

entitled “Waiver of Premium Benefit.” That 1980 amendment is the

applicable policy provision in this case and was appropriately

relied upon by Liberty Life. 

On the basis of the record before it, the court concludes

that Few failed to abide by the plain language of the terms of

the policy and termination of the benefit by Liberty Life was

appropriate. It is well-settled that “[u]nder ERISA, unambiguous

language in a plan is enforced according to its terms.” 

Balestracci, 449 F.3d at 230; see, e.g., Hughes v. Boston Mutual

Life Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 264, 268 (1st Cir. 1994)(“straightforward

language in an ERISA-regulated insurance policy should be given

its natural meaning”)(quotations omitted). The policy

unambiguously establishes that continued payment of the waiver of

premium benefit is contingent upon Few’s submission to reasonable

requests by Liberty Life for an independent medical exam. In 58

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 110 Filed 03/19/09 Page 21 of 29
be strictly construed against an insurer--applies in the ERISA

context is unclear, see Balestracci, 449 F.3d at 231 n.2, this

dispute does not involve ambiguity of terms, but rather

application of a clear amendment to the policy. Thus, this court

need not concern itself with whether contra proferentem applies. 

See id.

The fact that the information available to Liberty Life was 59

limited was a function of Few’s refusal to provide even basic

diagnostic data. It strikes the court as unfair for a claimant

to withhold supporting documentation and then complain that

requests for medical exams to replace that information gap are

unreasonable.

22

this case, Few adamantly refused to attend more than one

appointment per year, subjecting her to possible cancellation of

the policy.

The terms of the policy, however, authorize Liberty Life

only to require that policy holders submit to reasonable requests

for additional medical exams. In this case, the court concludes

that Liberty Life’s request that Few attend an independent

psychological exam and functional capacity exam was not

unreasonable given the limited and somewhat dated information it

possessed in 2005. 

59

Specifically, Few was initially granted the benefit on the

basis of a finding of disabling depression in 1992. Although

Few’s subjective reporting and limited notations on Dr.

Sheremata’s attending physician form indicated continuing

depression, Dr. Amy’s and Dr. Millstein’s reports called that

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 110 Filed 03/19/09 Page 22 of 29
The court notes that it is well-settled that in ERISA 60

cases, an insurer (and a court upon de novo review) is not bound

to rely on findings of the Social Security Administration

regrading disability. See, e.g., Pari-Fasano v. ITT Hartford

Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 230 F.3d 415, 420 (1st Cir. 2000).

23

diagnosis into question as a continuing basis for disability. 

When Few refused to submit updated information regarding her

depression, it was reasonable for Liberty Life to request an

independent psychological exam because the medical records on

that claim of disability were over a decade old. Cf. Brigham v.

Sun Life of Canada, 317 F.3d 72, 84 (1st Cir. 2003) (insurer’s

decision to require medical evidence beyond subjective

conclusions and unelaborated doctor’s notes is not arbitrary).

Further, it was reasonable to request a functional capacity

examination given Few’s new basis for disability, namely multiple

sclerosis. Dr. Sheremata’s two-page attending physician form,

certain social security documents, and Few’s own reports 60

regarding multiple sclerosis suggested continued total

disability. In the absence of detailed medical records

supporting this changed diagnosis, however, cf. id. (insurer

justified in seeking some clinical explanation for changed

diagnosis), it was reasonable for Liberty Life to seek additional

supporting information, in the form of a functional capacity

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 110 Filed 03/19/09 Page 23 of 29
The court notes, without deciding, that its finding of 61

reasonableness may have been different if Few had not flatly

refused to provide any supporting information regarding MS from

Dr. Sheremata. Cf. Brigham, 317 F.3d at 85 (claimants have

burden to substantiate new diagnosis); Giannone, 311 F. Supp.2d

at 177 (insurer’s decision to terminate benefits based on failure

to respond to repeated requests to bring medical information up

to date deemed “perfectly understandable”).

24

exam, about the disabling nature of Few’s multiple sclerosis. 

Cf. id. 

The court concludes, therefore, that the policy entitled

Liberty Life to terminate Few’s waiver of premium benefit. Few’s

benefit was conditioned on her agreement under the policy to

submit to reasonable requests for examinations. The court finds

that Liberty Life’s requests for the FCE and IPE in this instance

were reasonable. Liberty Life was justified, therefore, under

the terms of the policy to terminate her benefits given Few’s

complete refusal to cooperate.61

B. Proof of disability

Liberty Life also contends that it is entitled to summary

judgment because Few failed to submit the required proof of

continued disability. This court agrees.

It is well-settled that a claimant has the burden of

demonstrating disability within the terms of the plan. See,

e.g., Terry, 145 F.3d at 34. The plain language of the policy

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 110 Filed 03/19/09 Page 24 of 29
25

stated that continued entitlement to the benefit was contingent

upon “annual submission of due proof of the continued existence

of total disability . . .” The court must thus inquire as to the

meaning of “due proof” and whether Few has provided such proof

within the meaning of the contract. See, e.g., Orndorf, 404 F.3d

at 519; Dickerson v. Prudential Life Ins. Corp. of America, 574

F. Supp.2d 239, 244 (D.Mass. 2008). The term “due proof” is

undefined, and thus courts look to its common meaning when

interpreting the contract language. See, e.g., Filiatrault v.

Comverse Technology, Inc., 275 F.3d 131, 135 (1st Cir. 2001)

(“straightforward language in an ERISA-regulated plan should be

accorded its plain, ordinary, and natural meaning”). The term

“due” in this context is commonly understood to mean “capable of

satisfying a need, requirement, obligation, or duty: adequate,

sufficient.” See Webster’s New International Dictionary 699

(1993). Few, therefore, was required to submit sufficient proof

to demonstrate her entitlement to benefits and to substantiate

her continuing disability with updated medical information and

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 110 Filed 03/19/09 Page 25 of 29
Of course, the court does not mean to imply that Few was 62

required to provide information showing beyond any doubt that she

was disabled; she was merely required to provide proof adequate

to establish her entitlement to benefits. Cf. Giannone, 311 F.

Supp.2d at 177-79 (understandable for insurer to deny benefits

without updated information, however, insurer was not justified

after new information “overwhelmed” contrary data).

The focus of the court’s analysis at this juncture is the 63

relatively updated information available in 2005. The policy

clearly envisions that the benefit will be provided if total

disability is ongoing. Thus, to the extent that the record

contains medical evidence from the 1990's, the court finds that

information to be of less assistance to its analysis.

Few, moreover, relies heavily on a determination by the

Social Security Administration that she was due disability

benefits. The court notes, however, that although determination

of disability for purposes of entitlement to social security

benefits may have some bearing on the issue of disability under

an ERISA plan, this court is not bound by that determination. 

See Pari-Fasano, 230 F.3d at 419-20. Accordingly, the court

notes that it has reviewed the form letter from the Social

Security Administration summarizing Few’s entitlement to

benefits, but does not accord significant weight to it. See,

e.g., Dickerson, 574 F. Supp.2d at 245.

26

clinical information. See Brigham, 317 F.3d at 83-85 62

(paraplegic claimant required to substantiate entitlement).

As set forth above, the information in the record paints an

extremely contradictory picture of the extent of Few’s

disability. Few’s lengthy report of her physical limitations 63

and Dr. Sheremata’s attending physician forms indicate that Few’s

capacity to function is severely limited by multiple sclerosis,

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 110 Filed 03/19/09 Page 26 of 29
In particular, Dr. Sheremata’s conclusions that Few has a 64

“Class 5” physical impairment (severely limited) and a “Class 4”

mental impairment (markedly limited).

The court notes that Dr. Millstein echoed many of Dr. Amy’s 65

conclusions, although this is not unexpected given the relative

paucity of objective medical evidence in the record.

27

memory loss and depression. Dr. Amy’s report, however, calls 64

into question the multiple sclerosis diagnosis, and the extent of

Few’s mental and physical impairments. Moreover, a relatively 65

recent report completed by Few’s hematologist/oncologist

indicates that Few possessed only a “status 1” level of

impairment. Further, there is no record that Few currently was

receiving any psychiatric care or being actively treated for

depression (the basis for the initial finding of disability). 

Simply put, Few’s resistance to turn over any updated medical

records, despite her claim to have been seeing multiple doctors,

leaves gaping evidentiary holes to support her subjective reports

of depression and severe physical limitations.

Although the court is convinced that Few suffers from

multiple and very real physical challenges, it cannot conclude

that Few has carried her burden, within the terms of the policy,

to substantiate her claim of total disability. This court is

simply unable to conclude, given Few’s reluctance to provide even

minimal clinical support for Dr. Sheremata’s conclusions

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 110 Filed 03/19/09 Page 27 of 29
In fact, in the ERISA context, the Supreme Court has 66

specifically rejected the “treating physician’s rule,” deciding

that “courts have no warrant to require administrators

automatically to accord special weight to the opinions of a

claimant’s physician.” Black & Decker Disability Plan, 538 U.S.

at 834; see, e.g., Bufonge v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 426

F.3d 20, 27 (1st Cir. 2005).

28

regarding her ongoing physical and emotional challenges, that she

provided due proof of total disability. Cf. Brigham, 317 F.3d at

84 (noting that without information supporting unelaborated

doctor’s notes, a “reasonable factfinder” could determine

paraplegic was not totally disabled). It is true that the forms

provided by Dr. Sheremata weigh in favor of disability, but

without the supporting clinical information that led to that new

diagnosis, it is difficult to overcome the contrary conclusions

drawn by Dr. Amy, Dr. Millstein, and Few’s own oncologist/

hematologist suggesting something less than total disability. 

Although Dr. Sheremata was Few’s treating physician, an insurer

is not required to blindly accept conclusory findings provided by

an insured’s physician. See Brigham, 317 F.3d at 84; cf. Cooper

v. Life Ins. Co. of North America, 486 F.3d 157, 166-67 (6th Cir.

2007) (insurers, although not allowed to ignore treating

physician’s reports, are not obligated to blindly accept them

either) relying on Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, 538

U.S. 822, 834 (2003). 

66

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 110 Filed 03/19/09 Page 28 of 29
The court notes, again, that it is not beyond peradventure 67

that it would have reached a different conclusion: (1) if more

clinical information had been provided to Liberty Life by Few,

(2) that information was part of the existing administrative

record, and (3) it was capable of review by this court.

29

Thus, faced with conflicting and incomplete supporting

documents from Few, this court is constrained to conclude, after

a de novo review of the record, that Few has not met her burden

under the policy. Liberty Life, therefore, was justified in

terminating her benefit and is entitled to summary judgment.67

IV. CONCLUSION

After a de novo review of the administrative record before

this court, the defendants’ motion for summary judgement

(document no. 108) is granted. The clerk is directed to enter

judgment for the defendants and to close the case.

SO ORDERED.

_____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: March 19, 2009

cc: MS Few, pro se

Guy P. Tully, Esq.

Jeffrey Scott Brady, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 110 Filed 03/19/09 Page 29 of 29