Ruben Gonzales v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUBEN GONZALES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
OF AMERICA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-56543
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00468-AJB-
WVG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 5, 2015
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges and CHHABRIA, **
District Judge.
Ruben Gonzales applied for disability benefits under an ERISA plan.
Unum, the plan administrator, denied Gonzales’s application for benefits.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Vince Chhabria, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
FILED
NOV 18 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Gonzales then brought this action against Unum. The district court affirmed
Unum’s denial of benefits, and Gonzales appealed. We affirm.
All of Gonzales's arguments on appeal are without merit. Unum properly
disclosed the fact that it had communicated with Gonzales’s doctors. See Saffon v.
Wells Fargo & Co. Long Term Disability Plan, 522 F.3d 863, 873 n.4 (9th Cir.
2008). The district court adequately considered evidence that Unum had a conflict
of interest. See Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 967-69 (9th
Cir. 2006) (en banc). And for the reasons expressed in the district court's thorough
and well-reasoned decision, Unum did not abuse its discretion in determining
whether Gonzales was disabled under the Long-Term Disability Plan.1
AFFIRMED.
1 Though Gonzales asserted at oral argument that he also intended to
challenge the denial of benefits under the Short-Term Disability Plan, any such
challenge is waived. See In re Lowenschuss, 67 F.3d 1394, 1402 (9th Cir. 1995)
(“An issue not discussed in a brief, although mentioned in the Statement of Issues,
is deemed to be waived.”).

-- 2 of 2 --