-1- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Scott E. Davis 

State Bar No. 016160 

SCOTT E. DAVIS, P.C. 

8360 E. Raintree Drive, Suite 140 

Scottsdale, AZ 85260 

Telephone: (602) 482-4300 

Facsimile: (602) 569-9720 

email: davis@scottdavispc.com

Attorney for Plaintiff Rene Pieri-Gober 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Rene Pieri-Gober, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston; 

Avnet Inc.; Avnet Inc. Disability Plan, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 

COMPLAINT 

 

 Now comes the Plaintiff Rene Pieri-Gober (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), by 

and through her attorney, Scott E. Davis, and complaining against the Defendants, she 

states: 

Jurisdiction 

 1. Jurisdiction of the court is based upon the Employee Retirement Income 

Security Act of 1974 (ERISA); and in particular, 29 U.S.C. §§1132(e)(1) and 1132(f). 

Those provisions give the district courts jurisdiction to hear civil actions brought to recover 

employee benefits. In addition, this action may be brought before this Court pursuant to 28 

Case 2:15-cv-02314-MHB Document 1 Filed 11/14/15 Page 1 of 12
-2- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

U.S.C. §1331, which gives the Court jurisdiction over actions that arise under the laws of 

the United States. 

Parties 

 2. Plaintiff is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona. 

3. Upon information and belief, Avnet, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the 

“Company”) sponsored, administered and purchased a group long-term disability insurance 

policy which was fully insured by Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston (hereinafter 

referred to as “Liberty Mutual”). The specific Liberty Mutual long term disability group 

insurance policy is known as Group Policy No.: GF3-860-066398-01 (hereinafter 

referred to as the "Policy"). The Company’s purpose in sponsoring, administering and 

purchasing the Policy was to provide long term disability insurance for its employees. 

Upon information and belief, the Liberty Mutual Policy may have been included in and 

part of an employee benefit plan, specifically named the Avnet Inc. Disability Plan 

(hereinafter referred to as the “Plan”) which may have been created to provide the 

Company’s employees with welfare benefits. At all times relevant hereto, the Plan 

constituted an “employee welfare benefit plan” as defined by 29 U.S.C. §1002(1). 

4. Upon information and belief, Liberty Mutual functioned as the claim 

administrator of the policy; however, pursuant to the relevant ERISA regulation, the 

Company and/or the Plan may not have made a proper delegation or properly vested 

fiduciary authority or power for claim administration in Liberty Mutual. 

5. Liberty Mutual operated under a conflict of interest in evaluating her longterm disability claim due to the fact that it operated in dual roles as the decision maker with 

regard to whether Plaintiff was disabled as well as the payor of benefits. Liberty Mutual’s 

Case 2:15-cv-02314-MHB Document 1 Filed 11/14/15 Page 2 of 12
-3- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

conflict existed in that if it found Plaintiff was disabled, it was then liable for the payment of 

her disability benefits. 

6. The Company, Liberty Mutual and the Plan conduct business within 

Maricopa County and all events giving rise to this Complaint occurred within Arizona. 

Venue 

7. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §1132(e)(2) and 28 

U.S.C. §1391. 

Nature of the Complaint 

8. Incident to her employment, Plaintiff was a covered employee pursuant to 

the Plan and the relevant Policy and a “participant” as defined by 29 U.S.C. §1002(7). 

Plaintiff seeks disability income benefits in the form of “Own Occupation” benefits from 

the Plan and the relevant Policy pursuant to §502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 

§1132(a)(1)(B), as well as any other employee benefits she may be entitled to from the Plan 

and any other Company Plan, as a result of being found disabled in this action. Assuming 

the issue is ripe before the Court (i.e. the “Own Occupation” timeframe in the Plan and 

Policy has expired), Plaintiff also seeks a determination that she is disabled and meets the 

“Any Occupation” definition of disability set forth in the Plan and the relevant Policy as all 

the evidence she submitted to Liberty Mutual supports such a determination by the Court. 

9. After working for the Company as a loyal employee, Plaintiff became 

disabled on or about June 3, 2014, due to serious medical conditions and was unable to 

work in her designated occupation as a Business Development Manager. Plaintiff has 

remained disabled as that term is defined in the relevant Policy continuously since that date 

and has not been able to return to any occupation as a result of her serious medical 

conditions. 

Case 2:15-cv-02314-MHB Document 1 Filed 11/14/15 Page 3 of 12
-4- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

10. Following her disability, Plaintiff filed a claim for short term disability 

benefits which was approved by Liberty Mutual, and those benefits have been paid and 

exhausted. Plaintiff alleges the fact that her short term disability claim was approved and 

exhausted using a similar definition of disability as is contained in the long term disability 

Policy, is relevant evidence for this Court to consider with regard to the reasonableness of 

Liberty Mutual’s denial of her long term disability claim and is also evidence that its denial 

of her long term disability claim was influenced by its conflict of interest and its desire to 

save money. 

11. Following the exhaustion of her short-term disability benefits, Plaintiff then 

filed for long-term disability benefits under the relevant Policy which was administered by 

Liberty Mutual. Liberty Mutual made every decision in Plaintiff’s long-term disability 

claim, which was to deny it. 

12. Upon information and belief, the relevant Liberty Mutual Policy and 

definition of disability governing Plaintiff’s long term disability claim is as follows: 

“Disability” or “Disabled” means: 

1. For persons other than pilots, co-pilots, and crewmembers of 

an aircraft; 

1. i. if the covered person is eligible for the 24 Month Own 

Occupation benefit, “Disability” or “Disabled” means that 

during the Elimination Period and the next 24 months of 

Disability the Covered Person, as a result of Injury or 

Sickness, is unable to perform the Material and Substantial 

Duties of his Own Occupation. 

13. In support of her claim for long-term disability benefits, Plaintiff submitted to 

Liberty Mutual, medical evidence which supported her allegation that she met any 

definition of disability as defined in the relevant Policy. 

Case 2:15-cv-02314-MHB Document 1 Filed 11/14/15 Page 4 of 12
-5- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

14. As part of its review of Plaintiff’s claim for long term disability benefits, 

Liberty Mutual obtained medical records only "paper reviews" of Plaintiff’s claim from a 

“consulting physician” of its choosing; however, it never revealed the name of the physician 

to Plaintiff. 

15. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges the consulting physician may be 

a long time medical consultant for the disability insurance industry and/or Liberty Mutual. 

As a result, Plaintiff alleges the consulting physician may have an incentive to protect 

his/her own consulting relationship with the disability insurance industry and/or Liberty 

Mutual by providing medical records only paper reviews, which selectively review or 

ignore evidence such as occurred in Plaintiff’s claim, in order to provide opinions and 

report(s) which are favorable to insurance companies and which supported the denial of 

Plaintiff’s claim. 

16. In a letter dated October 13, 2014, Liberty Mutual informed Plaintiff it was 

denying her claim for long-term disability benefits. 

17. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §1133, Plaintiff timely appealed Liberty Mutual’s 

October 13, 2014 denial of her disability claim. 

18. In support of her appeal and claim for long term disability benefits, Plaintiff 

submitted to Liberty Mutual additional medical and vocational evidence demonstrating that 

she met any definition of disability set forth in the Policy. 

19. Plaintiff submitted to Liberty Mutual a May 28, 2015 narrative letter authored 

by her treating physician who opined, “It is reasonable to assume that [Plaintiff] is unable to 

work in any occupation and has been since June 3, 2014.” 

20. Plaintiff also submitted to Liberty Mutual an April 3, 2015 narrative letter 

authored by her treating physician who opined, “Given [Plaintiff’s] history and nature of her 

Case 2:15-cv-02314-MHB Document 1 Filed 11/14/15 Page 5 of 12
-6- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

condition, it is reasonable to assume she has been unable to work in any occupation since 

June 3, 2014 and will continue to be unable indefinitely.” 

21. Plaintiff submitted to Liberty Mutual a November 11, 2014 narrative letter 

authored by her treating physician who stated, “I specifically made the recommendation that 

the [Plaintiff] strongly consider disability given the fact that she was having a difficult time 

functioning due to ongoing flare-ups of her condition, generalized weakness and fatigue, 

and diffuse myalgias...” 

22. Plaintiff also submitted to Liberty Mutual a Functional Capacity Evaluation 

report dated February 11, 2015, wherein after an extensive several hour evaluation, a 

qualified physical therapist determined, “[Plaintiff] could not fulfill the description of 

sedentary work.” (original emphasis). 

23. Further supporting her claim, Plaintiff submitted a vocational report from a 

certified vocational expert dated April 18, 2015, who after reviewing Plaintiff’s medical 

evidence and the definition of disability and interviewing Plaintiff concluded, “...it is 

unmistakable, from a vocational perspective that [Plaintiff] is unable to return to her former 

occupation or any occupation which may exist in the national economy...” 

24. Plaintiff also submitted updated medical records from each of her treating 

providers and a list of her current medications, as well as the side effects they cause and the 

impact they would have on her ability to work in any work environment. 

25. Despite the objective medical and vocational evidence supporting 

Plaintiff’s claim for long term disability benefits, as part of its review of Plaintiff’s claim, 

Liberty Mutual referred Plaintiff to a medical examination with a physician that it chose, 

Paul F. Howard, M.D. After a superficial examination with Dr. Howard, who upon 

information and belief, Plaintiff believes may be regularly retained by the insurance 

Case 2:15-cv-02314-MHB Document 1 Filed 11/14/15 Page 6 of 12
-7- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

industry, he opined Plaintiff was able to engage in a gainful occupation and was not 

disabled. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Howard’s opinion that she can engage in a gainful 

occupation is inaccurate, erroneous and against the clear weight of all the evidence. 

Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges a motivating factor why Dr. Howard 

opined she was able to return to a gainful occupation is in part due to his relationship 

with the insurance industry and the regular medical examinations he may perform for the 

industry. As a result of his relationship with the insurance industry, Plaintiff alleges that 

Dr. Howard may have an interest in protecting that relationship and may be biased and 

lack objectivity. 

26. As an additional part of its review of Plaintiff’s claim for long term disability 

benefits, Liberty Mutual obtained a medical records only "paper review" of Plaintiff’s claim 

from a “consulting rheumatologist” of its choosing; however, it never revealed the name of 

the rheumatologist to Plaintiff. 

27. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges the consulting rheumatologist 

may be a long time medical consultant for the disability insurance industry and/or Liberty 

Mutual. As a result, Plaintiff alleges the physician may have an incentive to protect his/her 

own consulting relationship with the disability insurance industry and/or Liberty Mutual by 

providing medical records only paper reviews, which selectively review or ignore evidence 

such as occurred in Plaintiff’s claim, in order to provide opinions and report(s) which are 

favorable to insurance companies and which supported the denial of Plaintiff’s claim. 

28. In a letter dated May 28, 2015, in order to engage Liberty Mutual in a 

dialogue so she could perfect any alleged deficiencies in her claim, Plaintiff requested a 

complete copy of any and all medical records only “paper reviews” from Liberty Mutual 

Case 2:15-cv-02314-MHB Document 1 Filed 11/14/15 Page 7 of 12
-8- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

and the opportunity to respond to these reviews as well as to provide them to her treating 

physicians for their response prior to Liberty Mutual rendering a determination in her claim. 

29. In letters dated June 18, 2015 and June 29, 2015, in additional attempts to 

perfect any alleged deficiencies in her claim, Plaintiff requested a complete copy of Dr. 

Howard’s report as well as any and all surveillance footage and surveillance summaries 

associated with her file. Plaintiff also requested the opportunity to respond to Dr. Howard’s 

report and any surveillance footage that may exist as well as provide them to her treating 

physicians for their responses prior to Liberty Mutual rendering a determination in her 

claim. 

30. Prior to rendering its final denial in Plaintiff’s claim, Liberty Mutual never 

shared with Plaintiff the medical records only “paper review” authored by the consulting 

rheumatologist and never provided Plaintiff with a copy of Dr. Howard’s report so she 

could respond to the report and/or perfect her claim. Liberty Mutual’s failure to provide 

Plaintiff with the opportunity to respond to its consulting rheumatologist’s report as well as 

Dr. Howard’s report is an ERISA procedural violation and precluded a full and fair review. 

Liberty Mutual’s action in failing to disclose these reports is also a violation of Ninth 

Circuit case law. 

31. In a letter dated July 15, 2015, Liberty Mutual notified Plaintiff it had denied 

her claim for long-term disability benefits under the Policy. In the letter, Liberty Mutual 

also notified Plaintiff she had exhausted her administrative levels of review and could file a 

civil action lawsuit in federal court pursuant to ERISA. 

32. Upon information and belief, Liberty Mutual’s July 15, 2015 denial letter 

confirms it failed to provide a full and fair review, and in the process committed several 

procedural violations pursuant to ERISA due to among other reasons, completely failing to 

Case 2:15-cv-02314-MHB Document 1 Filed 11/14/15 Page 8 of 12
-9- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

credit, reference, consider, and/or selectively reviewing and de-emphasizing most, if not all 

of Plaintiff’s reliable evidence. 

33. In evaluating Plaintiff’s claim on appeal, Liberty Mutual had an obligation 

pursuant to ERISA to administer Plaintiff’s claim “solely in her best interests and other 

participants” which it failed to do. 1

 

34. Liberty Mutual failed to adequately investigate and failed to engage Plaintiff 

in a dialogue during the appeal of her claim with regard to what evidence was necessary so 

Plaintiff could perfect her appeal and claim. Liberty Mutual’s failure to investigate the 

claim and to engage in this dialogue or to obtain the evidence it believed was important to 

perfect Plaintiff's claim is a violation of ERISA and Ninth Circuit case law and a reason she 

did not receive a full and fair review. 

35. Plaintiff alleges Liberty Mutual provided an unlawful review which was 

neither full nor fair and that violated ERISA, specifically, 29 U.S.C. § 2560.503-1, by 

failing to adequately investigate her claim because its examining and reviewing medical 

professionals were not truly independent; failing to credit Plaintiff’s reliable evidence; 

providing one sided reviews of Plaintiff’s claim that failed to consider all the evidence 

submitted by her and/or de-emphasizing medical evidence which supported Plaintiff’s 

claim; disregarding Plaintiff’s self-reported symptoms; failing to consider all the diagnoses 

 

1

 It sets forth a special standard of care upon a plan administrator, namely, that the 

administrator "discharge [its] duties" in respect to discretionary claims processing "solely 

in the interests of the participants and beneficiaries" of the plan, § 1104(a)(1); it 

simultaneously underscores the particular importance of accurate claims processing by 

insisting that administrators "provide a 'full and fair review' of claim denials," Firestone, 

489 U.S., at 113, 109 S. Ct. 948, 103 L. Ed. 2d 80 (quoting § 1133(2)); and it 

supplements marketplace and regulatory controls with judicial review of individual claim 

denials, see § 1132(a)(1)(B). Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 128 S. Ct. 2343, 2350 (U.S. 

2008). 

Case 2:15-cv-02314-MHB Document 1 Filed 11/14/15 Page 9 of 12
-10- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

and/or limitations set forth in her medical evidence as well as the impact the combination of 

those diagnoses and impairments would have on her ability to work; failing to engage 

Plaintiff in a dialogue so she could respond to Liberty Mutual’s doctors’ reports by 

submitting the necessary evidence to perfect her claim and failing to consider the impact the 

side effects from Plaintiff's medications would have on her ability to engage in any 

occupation. 

36. Plaintiff alleges the reason Liberty Mutual provided an unlawful review 

which was neither full nor fair and that violated ERISA, specifically, 29 U.S.C. § 

2560.503-1, is due to its conflict of interest that manifested as a result of the dual roles 

Liberty Mutual undertook as decision maker and payor of benefits. Liberty Mutual’s 

conflict of interest provided it with a financial incentive to deny Plaintiff’s claim, thereby 

saving itself money. 

37. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery regarding Liberty Mutual’s aforementioned 

conflicts of interest and any individual who reviewed her claim and the Court may properly 

weigh and consider extrinsic evidence regarding the nature, extent and effect of any

conflict of interest and/or ERISA procedural violation which may have impacted or 

influenced Liberty Mutual’s decision to deny her claim. 

38. With regard to whether Plaintiff meets the definition of disability set forth in 

the Policy, the Court should review the evidence in Plaintiff’s claim de novo, because even 

if the Court concludes the policy confers discretion, the unlawful violations of ERISA 

committed by Liberty Mutual as referenced herein are so flagrant they justify de novo

review. 

39. As a direct result of Liberty Mutual’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s disability 

claim, she has been injured and suffered damages in the form of lost long term disability 

Case 2:15-cv-02314-MHB Document 1 Filed 11/14/15 Page 10 of 12
-11- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

benefits, in addition to other potential employee benefits she may have been entitled to 

receive through or from the Plan, from any other Company Plan and/or the Company as a 

result of being found disabled. Plaintiff believes other potential employee benefits may 

include but not be limited to, health and other insurance related coverage or benefits, 

retirement benefits or a pension, life insurance coverage and/or the waiver of the premium 

on a life insurance policy providing coverage for her and her family/dependents. 

40. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §1132, Plaintiff is entitled to recover unpaid benefits, 

prejudgment interest, reasonable attorney's fees and costs from Defendants. 

41. Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest at the legal rate pursuant to A.R.S. 

§20-462, or at such other rate as is appropriate to compensate her for losses she incurred 

as a result of Defendants’ nonpayment of benefits. 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows: 

 A. For an Order requiring Defendants to pay Plaintiff her long term disability 

benefits in the form of “Own Occupation” benefits as defined in the relevant Plan and 

Policy as well as any other employee benefits she may be entitled to as a result of being 

found disabled pursuant to the Policy, from the date she was first denied these benefits 

through the date of judgment and prejudgment interest thereon; 

 B. For an Order directing Defendants to continue paying Plaintiff the 

aforementioned benefits until such time as she meets the conditions for termination of 

benefits; 

 C. Assuming the issue is ripe before the Court (i.e. the “Own Occupation” 

timeframe in the Plan and Policy has expired), for an Order that Plaintiff also meets the 

“Any Occupation” definition of disability set forth in the relevant Plan and Policy and she is 

entitled to those benefits along with an Order directing Defendants to continue paying 

Case 2:15-cv-02314-MHB Document 1 Filed 11/14/15 Page 11 of 12
-12- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Plaintiff these benefits and any other employee benefits she may be entitled to as a result of 

being found disabled, until such time as she meets the conditions for the termination of 

benefits; 

 D. For attorney’s fees and costs incurred as a result of prosecuting this suit 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §1132(g); and 

 E. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

 

DATED this 14th day of November, 2015. 

 SCOTT E. DAVIS. P.C.

 By: /s/ Scott E. Davis 

 Scott E. Davis 

 Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:15-cv-02314-MHB Document 1 Filed 11/14/15 Page 12 of 12