Candace S. Walters v. Odyssey Healthcare Management Long Term Disability Plan

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CANDACE S. WALTERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE
MANAGEMENT LONG TERM
DISABILITY PLAN and ODYSSEY
HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT LONG
TERM DISABILITY PLAN
ADMINISTRATOR,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-16930
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00150-JAT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 14, 2016
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and KOZINSKI and FRIEDLAND, Circuit
Judges.
Candace Walters appeals the district court’s order granting summary
judgment to Odyssey Healthcare Management, denying her cross-motion, and
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
NOV 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
denying her motion to remand the matter to the plan administrator for further
factual inquiry. We affirm.
An order granting summary judgment on cross-motions is reviewed de novo.
Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. ConocoPhillips Co., 546 F.3d 1142, 1145 (9th
Cir. 2008). Summary judgment may be affirmed for any reason supported by the
record. Id.
We may assume without deciding that the district court incorrectly
disregarded Walters’ affidavit, which described her memory of submitting a claim
for long-term disability benefits. Had the district court considered that affidavit,
Odyssey would nonetheless be entitled to summary judgment. Under the
undisputed provisions of the long-term disability plan, a participant who believes
her claim was wrongly rejected must pursue an internal administrative appeal
within 180 days. Likewise, federal law requires a claimant to “avail himself or
herself of a plan’s own internal review procedures before bringing suit in federal
court.” Diaz v. United Agric. Emp. Welfare Benefit Plan & Trust, 50 F.3d 1478,
1483 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Amato v. Bernard, 618 F.2d 559, 566–68 (9th Cir.
1980)). Walters offered no evidence that she pursued an internal review of
Odyssey’s decision. She therefore cannot proceed with a federal lawsuit, see id.,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
and there is no need to remand the matter to the plan administrator for further
factual development.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --