Case Name: Laneice WHATLEY-BONNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PACIFIC TELESIS GROUP COMPREHENSIVE DISABILITY BENEFIT PLAN, Erroneously Sued As AT & T Umbrella Plan 1, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-17
Citations: 542 F. App'x 620
Docket Number: No. 11-57257
Parties: Laneice WHATLEY-BONNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PACIFIC TELESIS GROUP COMPREHENSIVE DISABILITY BENEFIT PLAN, Erroneously Sued As AT & T Umbrella Plan 1, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: PAEZ and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSON, Chief District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 542
Pages: 620–621

Head Matter:
Laneice WHATLEY-BONNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PACIFIC TELESIS GROUP COMPREHENSIVE DISABILITY BENEFIT PLAN, Erroneously Sued As AT & T Umbrella Plan 1, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11-57257.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 9, 2013.
Filed Oct. 17, 2013.
Brent Dorian Brehm, Glenn R. Kantor, Managing Senior Counsel, Peter S. Ses sions, Esquire, Kantor & Kantor LLP, Northridge, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Rebecca K. Kimura, Susan T. Kumagai, Esquire, Lafayette & Kumagai LLP, Sasha Lankarani, Esquire, Bley and Bley, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appel-lee.
Before: PAEZ and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSON, Chief District Judge.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
LaNeice Whatley-Bonner appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Pacific Telesis Group Comprehensive Disability Benefits Plan, which had denied her long term disability claim. We affirm.
Before Whatley-Bonner's injury, the Pacific Telesis Group Comprehensive Disability Benefits Plan was restated and its name changed to the AT & T West Disability Benefits Program. The district court properly found that the plan, both before and after reinstatement, granted discretion to the plan administrator to make eligibility determinations and in turn to delegate that discretion to a claims administrator, as it did here.
Because the claims administrator has discretion, its benefits decision "will not be disturbed if reasonable." Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 111, 109 S.Ct. 948, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989). Here, an independent physician and What-ley-Bonner's treating physician agreed that her disability did not meet the plan definition of long term disability. The claims administrator's denial of Whatley-Bonner's claim was therefore reasonable. Id.
In addressing whether the claims administrator's determination was reasonable, the district court is limited to the record before the administrator. Jebian v. Hewlett-Packard Co. Emp. Benefits Org. Income Prot. Plan, 349 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir.2003). The two exhibits that Whatley-Bonner sought to introduce in the district court were each created after the claims administrator rejected her appeal and were therefore not before the administrator. The district court did not err in excluding them.
AFFIRMED.
The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, Chief District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, sitting by designation.