Nannette Fawn Anderson v. Life Insurance Company of North America

1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NANNETTE FAWN ANDERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
NORTH AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-15522
D.C. No. 2:15-CV-00428-GMS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2017**
San Francisco, California
Before: SILER,*** TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Nannette Fawn Anderson appeals the district court’s order
upholding Defendant Life Insurance Company of North America’s (“LINA”)
* 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).
*** The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED
SEP 18 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
denial of her claim for disability benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.1
1. 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
if they are “clearly erroneous.” Muniz v. Amec Constr. Mgmt., Inc., 623 F.3d 1290,
1294 (9th Cir. 2010). We review the district court’s conclusions of law de novo.
Armani v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 840 F.3d 1159, 1162 (9th Cir. 2016).
2. The district court did not clearly err in weighing all of the medical
evidence2 and concluding that Anderson was not disabled under the group plan.
Muniz, 623 F.3d at 1294. The district court considered Anderson’s ailments both
separately and cumulatively, and it provided ample evidentiary support for its
conclusions. The court also considered the opinions of Drs. Campbell and Dooley
and provided evidentiary support to find their opinions less persuasive. The
district court’s ultimate conclusion is amply supported by the record.
3. The district court did not err when it reviewed the record without
requiring LINA to perform a vocational analysis in the first instance. See
McKenzie v. Gen. Tel. Co. of Cal., 41 F.3d 1310, 1317 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding
1 Anderson’s motion to take judicial notice (dkt. 18) is DENIED.
2 To the extent that this disposition references information that has been
filed under seal, we hereby unseal that information for purposes of this disposition.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
that “consideration of vocational evidence is unnecessary” where the record is
clear that the claimant “does not have an impairment which would prevent h[er]
from performing some identifiable job”). In addition, the district court properly
performed its own vocational analysis. As required under the plan, the district
court considered the duties of the occupation as it is normally performed in the
general labor market, and the court did not err when it failed to consider the mental
demands of Anderson’s job because no physician—outside of Dr. Campbell,
whom the district court deemed less persuasive—placed any mental restrictions on
Anderson.
4. Anderson’s remaining arguments are unpersuasive and do not warrant
reversal or remand.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --