GARNER v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

Justia Dockets & Filings Seventh Circuit Indiana Southern District GARNER v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

GARNER v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

Plaintiff:	KIMBERLY GARNER
Defendant:	AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
Case Number:	1:2017cv01307
Filed:	April 25, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office:	Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge:	Tim A. Baker
Presiding Judge:	Jane Magnus-Stinson
Nature of Suit:	Insurance
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1330 Breach of Contract
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
February 20, 2018	Filing 28 ENTRY - Plaintiff Kimberly Garner claims she has been unable to return to work at her job with Amazon since July 2016 due to difficulties with urinary incontinence. In the intervening months, Ms. Garner applied for long term disability benefits ("LTD") through an insurance policy issued to Amazon employees by Defendant Aetna Life Insurance Company ("Aetna"). Aetna twice denied Ms. Garner's claim following reviews by a nurse and a urologist concluding that Ms. Garne r is not disabled. Ms. Garner then filed this lawsuit against Aetna under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001, et seq., seeking past benefits, future benefits, and attorney's fees. For the reasons set forth in this Order, the Court GRANTS IN PART Ms. Garner's Motion and DENIES Aetna's Motion. The Court agrees with Ms. Garner that Aetna's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, but concludes that remand to Aetna -- rather than an award of benefits -- is the proper remedy in this instance. Aetna's decision to deny Ms. Garner benefits is entitled to deference. But Aetna is not entitled to rely upon critically flawed clinical reviews as the ba sis for its decision. The Court finds Aetna's denial of benefits to be arbitrary and capricious and therefore GRANTS IN PART Ms. Garner's Motion for Summary Judgment, 19 , and DENIES Aetna's Motion for Summary Judgment, 18 . Reman d, rather than an award of benefits, is the appropriate remedy in this case to allow Aetna to address the procedural errors identified herein. Final judgment will issue accordingly. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B), the Cour t ORDERS that Ms. Garner file any petition for attorney's fees on or before March 23, 2018. The Court requests that the Magistrate Judge confer with the parties to discuss the possibility of a negotiated resolution as to the fee issue. (SEE ENTRY). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/20/2018. (APD)

Date Filed

Document Text

February 20, 2018

Filing 28 ENTRY - Plaintiff Kimberly Garner claims she has been unable to return to work at her job with Amazon since July 2016 due to difficulties with urinary incontinence. In the intervening months, Ms. Garner applied for long term disability benefits ("LTD") through an insurance policy issued to Amazon employees by Defendant Aetna Life Insurance Company ("Aetna"). Aetna twice denied Ms. Garner's claim following reviews by a nurse and a urologist concluding that Ms. Garne r is not disabled. Ms. Garner then filed this lawsuit against Aetna under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001, et seq., seeking past benefits, future benefits, and attorney's fees. For the reasons set forth in this Order, the Court GRANTS IN PART Ms. Garner's Motion and DENIES Aetna's Motion. The Court agrees with Ms. Garner that Aetna's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, but concludes that remand to Aetna -- rather than an award of benefits -- is the proper remedy in this instance. Aetna's decision to deny Ms. Garner benefits is entitled to deference. But Aetna is not entitled to rely upon critically flawed clinical reviews as the ba sis for its decision. The Court finds Aetna's denial of benefits to be arbitrary and capricious and therefore GRANTS IN PART Ms. Garner's Motion for Summary Judgment, 19 , and DENIES Aetna's Motion for Summary Judgment, 18 . Reman d, rather than an award of benefits, is the appropriate remedy in this case to allow Aetna to address the procedural errors identified herein. Final judgment will issue accordingly. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B), the Cour t ORDERS that Ms. Garner file any petition for attorney's fees on or before March 23, 2018. The Court requests that the Magistrate Judge confer with the parties to discuss the possibility of a negotiated resolution as to the fee issue. (SEE ENTRY). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/20/2018. (APD)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: GARNER v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
Represented By:	Moyenda Mutharika Knapp
Represented By:	Gregory Gurod Taylor
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: KIMBERLY GARNER
Represented By:	Bridget L. O'Ryan
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?