United States v. 2020-06-15 | 19-55555 | HOLLY ODD V. DELTA AIR LINES, INC. | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

1

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HOLLY ODD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DELTA AIR LINES, INC., a corporation
and DELTA FAMILY-CARE
DISABILITY AND SURVIVORSHIP
PLAN, an ERISA plan,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 19-55555

D.C. No. 2:18-cv-02523-WDK-
MRW

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
William D. Keller, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 5, 2020
**

Pasadena, California

Before: LEE and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,
***
District Judge.

*
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 Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for
the District of Montana, sitting by designation.
FILED

JUN 15 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2

Holly Odd appeals the district court’s judgment in favor of the Delta Family-
Care Disability and Survivorship Plan after a bench trial on her claim for wrongful
denial of disability benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (“ERISA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The Plan’s boilerplate list of information that Odd could submit on appeal
following the denial of her claim for benefits did not comply with its procedural
obligation to engage in “meaningful dialogue.” Salomaa v. Honda Long Term
Disability Plan, 642 F.3d 666, 680 (9th Cir. 2011). But even considering this
deficiency, the Plan did not abuse its discretion in denying Odd’s claim. Abatie v.
Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 971–72 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc). Four
independent reviewers determined that Odd was not disabled, Odd’s own primary
care physician and neurologist provided mixed evidence about her condition, and
only one of her treatment providers responded to inquiries from the independent
reviewers. Further, the Plan did not impermissibly condition benefits “on the
existence of evidence that cannot exist” by requiring objective confirmation of
Odd’s neck pain and headaches. Salomaa, 642 F.3d at 678. Odd offers no support
for the contention that her condition is clinically undetectable. Cf. id. at 676–78
(discussing chronic fatigue syndrome).
AFFIRMED.