EUGENE S. v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22803, 52 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2432, 663 F.3d 1124 (2011)
Rule of Law:
In ERISA benefit disputes, if a plan grants the administrator discretionary authority, courts review decisions under an arbitrary and capricious standard rather than de novo, and administrators are not required to accord special deference to the opinions of treating physicians over other reliable evidence.
Facts:
- Eugene S. sought insurance coverage for his son, A.S., to receive residential treatment for mental health issues under an employer-sponsored ERISA plan.
- Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield (Horizon) insured the plan, while Magellan Behavioral Health (Magellan) served as the delegated third-party administrator for mental health claims.
- Magellan initially denied the request for residential treatment, asserting that A.S. only qualified for intensive outpatient treatment.
- After appeals, Magellan approved residential benefits for a limited period (August to November 2006) but denied benefits for the subsequent period (November 2006 to June 2007).
- Magellan justified the denial by citing clinical evidence that A.S. had stabilized, his depressive symptoms had resolved, and he had successfully completed home visits.
- A.S.'s treating clinicians disagreed with Magellan, arguing that A.S. required continued residential care to prevent regression.
- Eugene S. exhausted his administrative appeals and sought judicial review to recover the cost of the denied treatment.
Procedural Posture:
- Eugene S. filed a complaint against Horizon in the United States District Court for the District of Utah.
- Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- Eugene S. filed a motion to strike a declaration containing the Vendor Services Agreement, which Horizon filed late.
- The District Court denied the motion to strike.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Horizon, finding the denial was not arbitrary or capricious.
- Eugene S. appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the district court err in applying an arbitrary and capricious standard of review to the plan administrator's denial of benefits, and was the denial reasonable despite conflicting recommendations from the patient's treating physicians?
Opinions:
Majority - Kelly
No, the district court correctly applied the arbitrary and capricious standard and properly upheld the denial of benefits. The court reasoned that the Summary Plan Description (SPD) legally functioned as the Plan itself and contained explicit language granting Horizon and its delegates discretionary authority to determine medical necessity. Although Horizon had a structural conflict of interest as both insurer and decision-maker, this factor did not mandate de novo review but was merely weighed within the deferential standard. Regarding the merits, the court cited Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, holding that ERISA administrators are not required to defer to treating physicians. Because substantial evidence—such as A.S.'s stabilization and successful home visits—supported Magellan's decision that residential care was no longer necessary, the denial was not arbitrary or capricious.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high hurdle plaintiffs face in ERISA litigation when plan documents grant discretionary authority to administrators. It clarifies the Tenth Circuit's interpretation of CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, establishing that a Summary Plan Description (SPD) can serve as the governing plan document if it expressly states so and does not conflict with other documents. Furthermore, the court firmly rejects the application of a 'treating physician rule' in the ERISA context, affirming that administrators may prioritize their own medical reviews over the recommendations of a patient's personal doctors, provided substantial evidence supports their conclusion. The ruling also demonstrates that delegating claims administration to a third party (Magellan) helps mitigate dual-role conflicts of interest.
