Allan J. Hamilton, M.d. v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable Glenn L. Archer, Jr., Senior United States Circuit**
Judge for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALLAN J. HAMILTON, M.D.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 09-16009
D.C. No. 4:06-cv-00417-DCB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 15, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, ARCHER and CALLAHAN, Circuit**
Judges.
Even if we were to review the Plan Administrator’s interpretation of “Total
Disability” and “Totally Disabled” de novo, plaintiff would not be entitled to this
FILED
MAY 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

page 2
kind of benefit. The Plan’s language is unambiguous, and plaintiff does not satisfy
its requirement that he be “earning less than 20% of [his] Pre-disability Earnings.”
[ER 260–61] Because the definition of these terms is also conspicuous and
unambiguous, plaintiff cannot claim that any expectations he had to the contrary
were reasonable. See Peterson v. Am. Life & Health Ins. Co., 48 F.3d 404, 411–12
(9th Cir. 1995).
In light of these considerations, we have no need to reach plaintiff’s other
assertions of error, which are unavailing in any event. The district court’s rulings
on discovery and the administrative record were not abuses of discretion.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --