Petra Heng v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PETRA HENG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-16726
D.C. No. 3:16-cv-04136-EMC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 11, 2018**
Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Petra Heng appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her
action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) for
accidental death and dismemberment (“AD&D”) benefits. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Tremain v. Bell Indus., Inc., 196
* 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
OCT 15 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-16726
F.3d 970, 975 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Heng failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant incorrectly
denied AD&D benefits. See Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955,
962-63 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (on de novo review, the district court “simply
proceeds to evaluate whether the plan administrator correctly or incorrectly denied
benefits;” this court reviews de novo the district court’s application of the standard
of review to decisions by fiduciaries in ERISA cases, and for clear error the
underlying findings of fact). As appellant conceded in district court in response to
Met Life’s motion for summary judgment, her husband Thomas was “no longer co-
employed by Tri Net after June 30, 2012.” Accordingly, the contract on which
appellant relies no longer covered her husband, either on July 1, 2012 or July 25,
2012 when he was discovered deceased. The conversion option rights in the
contract, which were never exercised, unambiguously related only to life insurance
coverage, not to AD&D.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --