Opinion ID: 170023
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Affidavit of Mr. Jewell

Text: The district court admitted Mr. Jewell's affidavit saying only that, along with the Peters and Caster letters, it could assist the Court in understanding the medical issues in this case. App. 786. We cannot agree. Mr. Jewell made out the affidavit, apparently, because [i]t is my understanding that my credibility has come under attack in arguments present [sic] by the Defendant. App. 746. In the affidavit, Mr. Jewell briefly recounts the history of his employment at Sprint and his disability, and he states that although his condition has not substantially changed since October 2000 it may have deteriorated. App. 748. He further denies that he fooled his doctors into changing their diagnosis or that the impecuniousness caused by his divorce was what motivated him to reopen his benefits claim after nearly two years. App. 747-48. This affidavit does not meet the requirements imposed by Hall. The substance of the affidavit was entirely within Mr. Jewell's knowledge during the claim administration process, and the affidavit contains no information relating to events occurring after September 15, 2003, the date of Mr. Jewell's final administrative appeal. [5] There is nothing in the affidavit that could not have been submitted to the plan administrator at the time the challenged decision was made. Hall, 300 F.3d at 1203. Nor was the affidavit necessary to an adequate review by the district court. It has no particular relevance to understanding the medical issues in this case, App. 786, so the district court's reason for accepting it fails. The only arguable relevance of the affidavit to any issue in the case might be as an attempt to bolster the credibility of the plaintiff's doctors. In that respect, the affidavit fails as well, both because the credibility of Mr. Jewell's doctors has never been seriously questioned and because the minimal additional assurance of their credibility that this affidavit would provide is not necessary to the district court's de novo review. Hall, 300 F.3d at 1203. Under the strict standard of Hall, the district court's decision to admit Mr. Jewell's affidavit was an abuse of discretion.