Valentine v. Aetna Life Insurance Company

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Eastern District Valentine v. Aetna Life Insurance Company

Valentine v. Aetna Life Insurance Company

Plaintiff:	Carol Valentine
Defendant:	Aetna Life Insurance Company
Case Number:	2:2014cv01752
Filed:	March 18, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Central Islip Office
Presiding Judge:	Gary R. Brown
Presiding Judge:	Leonard D. Wexler
Nature of Suit:	Labor: E.R.I.S.A.
Cause of Action:	29 U.S.C. § 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
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
August 31, 2016	Filing 57 ORDER granting 40 Motion for Attorney Fees; terminating 55 Motion for Attorney Fees. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court awards plaintiff $19,591.00 in attorney's fees and $350 in costs. SO ORDERED. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 8/31/2016. (Akers, Medora)
August 25, 2015	Filing 36 ORDER denying 17 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 27 Motion for Summary Judgment For the reasons set forth herein, after careful review of the entire administrative record, and according Aetna a deferential standard of review, the Court co ncludes that defendants decision to terminate plaintiffs long term disability benefits beyond June 30, 2012 failed to address substantial evidence in the record, and was thus arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is, therefore, denied, and plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is granted to the extent that the claim is remanded to Aetna for reconsideration. SO ORDERED. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 8/25/2015. (Mesrobian, David)

Date Filed

Document Text

August 31, 2016

Filing 57 ORDER granting 40 Motion for Attorney Fees; terminating 55 Motion for Attorney Fees. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court awards plaintiff $19,591.00 in attorney's fees and $350 in costs. SO ORDERED. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 8/31/2016. (Akers, Medora)

August 25, 2015

Filing 36 ORDER denying 17 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 27 Motion for Summary Judgment For the reasons set forth herein, after careful review of the entire administrative record, and according Aetna a deferential standard of review, the Court co ncludes that defendants decision to terminate plaintiffs long term disability benefits beyond June 30, 2012 failed to address substantial evidence in the record, and was thus arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is, therefore, denied, and plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is granted to the extent that the claim is remanded to Aetna for reconsideration. SO ORDERED. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bianco on 8/25/2015. (Mesrobian, David)

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 New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Valentine 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
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: Carol Valentine
Represented By:	Ronald L. Epstein
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?