Pinkham v. AETNA Life Insurance Company

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Southern District Pinkham v. AETNA Life Insurance Company

Pinkham v. AETNA Life Insurance Company

Plaintiff:	Karen Pinkham
Defendant:	Aetna Life Insurance Company
Case Number:	7:2015cv06462
Filed:	August 17, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	White Plains Office
County:	Orange
Presiding Judge:	Kenneth M. Karas
Nature of Suit:	Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
Cause of Action:	29 U.S.C. § 1132
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
September 26, 2017	Filing 58 OPINION & ORDER re: 42 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Toys "R" Us, Inc., Aetna Life Insurance Company, 47 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Karen Pinkham. After a review of the Administrative Re cord, the Court finds that Aetna's decision to deny Plaintiff benefits was not arbitrary and capricious. "Plaintiff's arguments go to the weight of the evidence, not the reasonableness of [Aetna's] decision or whether it was su pported by substantial evidence in the record. Plaintiff simply disagrees with [Aetna's] conclusions and decision." Snyder, 2004 WL 1784334, at *6. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the pending Motions, (see Dkt. Nos. 42, 47), enter judgment for Defendants, and close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 9/26/2017) (anc)

Date Filed

Document Text

September 26, 2017

Filing 58 OPINION & ORDER re: 42 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Toys "R" Us, Inc., Aetna Life Insurance Company, 47 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Karen Pinkham. After a review of the Administrative Re cord, the Court finds that Aetna's decision to deny Plaintiff benefits was not arbitrary and capricious. "Plaintiff's arguments go to the weight of the evidence, not the reasonableness of [Aetna's] decision or whether it was su pported by substantial evidence in the record. Plaintiff simply disagrees with [Aetna's] conclusions and decision." Snyder, 2004 WL 1784334, at *6. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the pending Motions, (see Dkt. Nos. 42, 47), enter judgment for Defendants, and close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 9/26/2017) (anc)

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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Pinkham 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 ]
Plaintiff: Karen Pinkham
Represented By:	Michael E. Quiat
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 ]
Defendant: Aetna Life Insurance Company
Represented By:	Christopher Abatemarco
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?