Lonny R. Western v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LONNY R. WESTERN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-56039

D.C. No.
2:16-cv-09527-JFW-AS

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 6, 2020
**

Pasadena, California

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and WARDLAW and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Lonny Western appeals the district court’s judgment, entered in favor of
Unum Life Insurance Co. of America after a bench trial, on Western’s claims for
benefits, declaratory relief, and breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

MAR 17 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2
Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. The district court correctly applied a de novo standard of review. See
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115 (1989). There is no
evidence that the district court deferred to Unum’s coverage decisions.
2. The district court did not clearly err by finding that Western was no
longer disabled as of March 12, 2015. Silver v. Exec. Car Leasing Long-Term
Disability Plan, 466 F.3d 727, 732–33 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Where . . . a district court
has conducted a de novo review of an ERISA plan administrator’s decision, we
review the court’s factual findings only to determine whether they are ‘clearly
erroneous.’” (quoting Kearney v. Standard Ins. Co., 175 F.3d 1084, 1095 (9th Cir.
1999) (en banc))).
The district court appropriately focused its analysis on whether Western was
disabled by cognitive deficits. See Jordan v. Northrop Grumman Corp. Welfare
Benefit Plan, 370 F.3d 869, 880 (9th Cir. 2004), overruled on other grounds as
recognized by Salomaa v. Honda Long Term Disability Plan, 642 F.3d 666, 673–
74 (9th Cir. 2011). And the record supported its finding that he was not: two
neuropsychologists, including one referred to Western by his primary physician,
evaluated Western and found that his cognitive abilities were intact. Further, it
was not clear error for the district court to credit the opinions of Unum’s doctors

3
over those of Western’s personal physicians. See Williby v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.,
867 F.3d 1129, 1137 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining that a court reviewing a benefits
denial need not “accord special weight to the opinions of a claimant’s physician”)
(citation omitted).
3. The district court did not err by dismissing Western’s claim for breach of
fiduciary duty. See Arizona ex rel. Goddard v. Harkins Amusement Enters., Inc.,
603 F.3d 666, 669 (9th Cir. 2010). The claim is based on the allegation that Unum
wrongfully terminated Western’s benefits, but Unum’s termination of benefits was
not wrongful.
AFFIRMED.