Denise K. Hamma v. Intel Corporation

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DENISE K. HAMMA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
INTEL CORPORATION; INTEL
CORPORATION LONG TERM
DISABILITY BENEFIT PLAN; INTEL
DISABILITY APPEALS COMMITTEE;
MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT,
INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-15815
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01795-GEB-
CMK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 14, 2010
San Francisco, California
FILED
APR 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

The Honorable James Maxwell Moody, United States District Judge**
for the District of Arkansas, sitting by designation.
Employee Retirement Income Security Act1
2
Before: SCHROEDER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and MOODY, Judge.**
Appellant Denise Hamma’s (Hamma’s) claim for long-term disability
(LTD) benefits under Appellee Intel Corporation’s (Intel) Long-Term Disability
Benefit Plan (Plan) was denied by the plan administrator, Matrix Absence
Management, Inc. (Matrix), and her appeal was denied by the Intel Disability
Appeals Committee (Appeals Committee). Hamma challenges the district court’s
summary judgment in favor of Intel, asserting that Matrix and the Appeals
Committee abused their discretion.
Matrix and the Appeals Committee did not abuse their discretion by relying
on a neurologist and neurosurgeon as peer review physicians in evaluating
Hamma’s medical condition, and they specified their reasons for not crediting the
opinions of Hamma’s treating physicians. See 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1(h)(3)(iii)
(“[T]he appropriate named fiduciary shall consult with a health care professional
who has appropriate training and experience in the field of medicine involved in
the medical judgment[.]”); see also LaMantia v. Voluntary Plan Administrators,
Inc., 401 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005) (“ERISA and the Secretary of Labor’s1
regulations implementing the statute do not command plan administrators to credit

-- 2 of 4 --

3
the opinions of treating physicians over other evidence relevant to the claimant’s
medical condition.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Although
they did not expressly address the award of social security benefits or Hamma’s
prescription medications in their denial letters, Matrix and the Appeals Committee
fully and fairly reviewed Hamma’s medical evidence, including the additional
medical evidence submitted to the Appeals Committee, and their denials of LTD
benefits comported with ERISA’s requirements. See Abatie v. Alta Health & Life
Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 972 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (“When an administrator can
show that it has engaged in an ongoing, good faith exchange of information
between the administrator and the claimant, the court should give the
administrator’s decision broad deference notwithstanding a minor irregularity.”)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Montour v. Hartford Life
& Acc. Ins. Co., 588 F.3d 623, 629 (9th Cir. 2009), as amended (“In the absence of
a conflict, judicial review of a plan administrator’s benefits determination involves
a straightforward application of the abuse of discretion standard. In these
circumstances, the plan administrator’s decision can be upheld if it is grounded on
any reasonable basis.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis
in the original).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Because the Plan required the submission of objective medical evidence to
support a pain-based disability claim, the lack of such evidence was a reasonable
basis for denial.
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --