Marlene Cimino v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 01-1888
___________
MARLENE CIMINO,
Appellant
v.
RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
PHN PACKAGING SYSTEMS, INC. a/k/a H & N PACKAGING
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
District Court Judge: The Honorable Lowell A. Reed, Jr.
(D.C. Civil No. 00-2088)
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
April 2, 2002
Before: SLOVITER, FUENTES, and MICHEL, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: April 11, 2002)
________________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
________________________
FUENTES, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff Marlene Cimino brought this suit under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act seeking past and future benefits under the long-term disability plan provided
by her employer, Defendant PHN Packaging Systems, Inc., and administered by
Defendant Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company ("Reliance Standard"). Cimino
asserts that anxiety, depression, and other physical and mental conditions rendered her
totally disabled and therefore qualified for benefits under the plan. Reliance Standard
denied her claims for benefits and her administrative appeals.
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and Cimino responded with a
cross-motion to compel answers to interrogatories. The District Court applied the
"heightened arbitrary and capricious" standard under Pinto v. Reliance Standard Life Ins.
Co., 214 F.3d 377 (3d Cir. 2000), because Reliance Standard both funds the disability
plan and exercises sole discretionary, fiduciary authority to make eligibility
determinations. The court found that Reliance Standard’s decision was not unreasonable,
and that no unfairness or procedural abnormalities marred Reliance Standard’s decision-
making process. It therefore granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and
denied Cimino’s motion to compel because the evidence Cimino sought would not have
any impact on the outcome of the case.
We have carefully considered Cimino’s arguments in this appeal and find that they
lack merit. We agree with the District Court that the "heightened arbitrary and
capricious" standard applies because the plain language of the plan clearly delegates

-- 1 of 2 --

discretionary, fiduciary authority to Reliance Standard. The District Court did not err in
holding that Reliance Standard’s decision did not violate this standard. We also find no
error in the denial of Cimino’s motion to compel.
For the reasons substantially stated in the thorough and well-reasoned opinion of
Judge Reed, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.
____________________________
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
Kindly file the foregoing Opinion.
/s/ Julio M. Fuentes
Circuit Judg

-- 2 of 2 --