Langley v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
MARVIN LANGLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY and SOUTHWEST
AIRLINES COMPANY,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-2832-K
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before 	the 	Court 	are 	Defendant 	Metropolitan 	Life 	Insurance 	Company’s
(“MetLife”) Renewed Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52 (the “Motion”) (Doc. No. 32), Plaintiff Marvin
Langley’s Brief in Support of His Response to Defendant MetLife’s Motion (the
“Response”) (Doc. No. 36), and Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to the
Motion (the “Reply”) (Doc. No. 38). The Court has carefully considered the Motion,
the Response, the Reply, the applicable law, and the administrative record, including
relevant portions of the supporting appendices. After conducting a de novo review of the
administrative record, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to satisfy his burden of
establishing his entitlement to benefits under the Southwest Airlines Company Welfare
Benefit Plan (the “Plan”). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion.
Case 3:24-cv-02832-K Document 50 Filed 03/30/26 Page 1 of 11 PageID <pageID>

2
I. 	Factual Background
Plaintiff Marvin Langley previously worked for Southwest Airlines Company
(“Southwest”). See Doc. No. 36 at 4, ¶2 (all citations to CM/ECF assigned page number
unless otherwise noted). On November 19, 2023, Plaintiff was inspecting “wing to
body panels” that were removed from an aircraft in Southwest’s fleet. Id. “When the
panels are removed by mechanics, they put them on storage racks on the hangar floor.
Then the inspectors [such as Plaintiff] are given task cards to inspect these removed
panels for faults and discrepancies and document any damage.” Id. The panels each
weigh over 50 pounds. Id. at 5, ¶3.
Plaintiff alleges that he sustained injuries to his left eye when he “manually
lift[ed] heavy body panels for inspection.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that after he lifted a
panel, he lost vision in his left eye. Id. He alleges that Southwest “failed to provide
[him] with special lifting devices to lift these panels, despite numerous warnings
regarding the risk of injury[.]” Id. at 4, ¶2. On November 27, 2023, Plaintiff saw Dr.
Sierra Suarez, his optometrist, who then referred him to Dr. Musa R. Abdelaziz, his
retinal specialist. See id. at 5, ¶4. Dr. Abdelaziz diagnosed Plaintiff with a Central
Retinal Vein Occlusion (“CRVO”) with macular edema in his left eye, as well as “retinal
hemorrhaging,” secondary to CRVO, also in his left eye. Doc. No. 32 at 4, 7, 13.
Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a claim for accidental dismemberment benefits under
the Plan. Id. at 7. Upon receiving notice of the claim, MetLife requested that Plaintiff
and his treating physician fill out statement of claim forms for MetLife’s review. Id.
Case 3:24-cv-02832-K Document 50 Filed 03/30/26 Page 2 of 11 PageID <pageID>

3
Both Plaintiff and Dr. Abdelaziz filled out the forms, which Plaintiff faxed to MetLife
on January 9, 2024. Id.; see also Doc. No. 33-1 at 43–66 (statement of claim forms
completed by Plaintiff and Dr. Abdelaziz). On January 23, 2024, MetLife denied
Plaintiff’s claim. Doc. No. 32 at 8; see also Doc. No. 33-1 at 90–91 (denial letter).
Plaintiff subsequently filed an appeal of MetLife’s decision, which was unsuccessful.
See Doc. No. 32 at 9 (“[w]ith no evidence that Plaintiff’s loss of sight was solely and
directly due to an accident, MetLife upheld the denial of Plaintiff’s claim”); Doc. No.
33-1 at 116–17 (appeal determination letter).
Plaintiff then filed suit against MetLife and Southwest in Texas state court,
alleging wrongful denial of benefits under the Plan, which is governed by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), unfair or deceptive settlement practices,
and negligence. See Doc. No. 1-2 (Plaintiff’s original state court petition). Defendants
MetLife and Southwest removed this case to federal court on the basis of federal
question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Doc. No. 1 at 2 (notice of removal).
Plaintiff later filed his Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 30), which is the live
pleading, 	asserting 	claims 	for 	wrongful 	denial 	of 	benefits 	against 	MetLife 	and
negligence against Southwest. See Doc. No. 30.
MetLife then filed the present Motion, to which Plaintiff filed his Response and
MetLife its Reply. Therefore, the Motion is now ripe for determination. Only Plaintiff’s
claim against MetLife for wrongful denial of benefits is at issue in the present Motion.
Case 3:24-cv-02832-K Document 50 Filed 03/30/26 Page 3 of 11 PageID <pageID>

4
II. 	Legal Standards
Before reviewing MetLife’s denial of benefits, the Court must first resolve two
matters. First, it must address Plaintiff’s argument that a motion for judgment on the
administrative record under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52 is not a permitted
procedural mechanism, but rather MetLife’s Motion should be treated as a motion for
summary judgment. See Doc. No. 36 at 6–8, ¶¶9–16. Second, the Court must address
the proper standard for reviewing a denial of benefits under an ERISA-governed plan.
A. 	Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52
Plaintiff argues that “[a] motion for judgment on the administrative record is ‘a
motion that does not appear to be authorized in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.’”
Id. at 6, ¶9 (quoting Hall v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co., Civ. Action No. 4:16-CV-160-DMB-
JMV, 2018 WL 1440075, at *2 (N.D. Miss. Mar. 22, 2018)) (internal quotations
omitted). In lieu of providing explanation, Plaintiff abruptly attempts to convert
MetLife’s Motion into one for summary judgment. See Doc. No. 36 at 6–9, ¶¶9–21.
On that argument, Plaintiff concludes that he “has satisfied his burden to show that a
genuine dispute of material fact exists” as to his entitlement to dismemberment
benefits. Id. at 9, ¶18.
Plaintiff’s argument is incorrect. Contrary to Plaintiff’s contentions, multiple
courts have used Rule 52, which governs findings of fact and conclusions of law, to
analyze claims for wrongful denial of benefits under ERISA. See Bellace v. Hartford Life
& Accident Ins. Co., Civ. Action No. 3:24-CV-00136-K, 2025 WL 2345157, at *2 (N.D.
Case 3:24-cv-02832-K Document 50 Filed 03/30/26 Page 4 of 11 PageID <pageID>

5
Tex. Aug. 13, 2025) (Kinkeade, J.) (analyzing denial of benefits under Rule 52);
Leontieva v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., Civ. Action No. 4:22-CV-02822, 2024 WL 5185695,
at *2 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2024) (quoting Hodge v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., Civ.
Action No. 4:20-CV-2088, 2021 WL 5142793, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2021)) (“[i]n
deciding 	similar 	ERISA 	benefit 	disputes, 	this 	Court 	has 	determined 	that 	the
‘appropriate way to resolve [the] dispute is by making findings of fact and conclusions
of law consistent with Rule 52’”); Wicks v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 23-11247, 2024 WL
4212891, at *4 (5th Cir. Sept. 17, 2024) (noting that the district court conducted de
novo review under Rule 52). Accordingly, the Court finds that Rule 52 is a proper
procedural mechanism here and will analyze the present Motion under Rule 52.
B. 	Standard of Review
MetLife argues that the Court must apply a de novo standard in reviewing
MetLife’s denial of benefits. See Doc. No. 32 at 10. Plaintiff does not challenge
MetLife’s contention or provide any additional insight as to the proper standard of
review. Because there is no disagreement between the parties as to application of the
de novo standard (a more favorable standard for Plaintiff), the Court will review
MetLife’s denial of benefits de novo. See Firestone Tire & Rubber v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101,
115 (1989) (default standard of review in benefits denial case is de novo); see also Ariana
M. v. Humana Health Plan of Tex., Inc., 884 F.3d 246 (5th Cir. 2018) (de novo standard
applies to denial of benefits based on legal interpretation of benefits plan or factual
determination).
Case 3:24-cv-02832-K Document 50 Filed 03/30/26 Page 5 of 11 PageID <pageID>

6
Under the de novo standard of review, the Court must “independently weigh the
facts and opinions in the administrative record to determine whether the claimant has
met his burden of showing” his entitlement to benefits. Pike v. Hartford Life & Accident
Ins. Co., 368 F. Supp. 3d 1018, 1030 (E.D. Tex. 2019) (Mazzant, J.) (internal
quotations omitted). MetLife’s denial of benefits “is not afforded deference or a
presumption of correctness.” Wicks v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., Civ. Action No. 4:21-CV-
1275-O, 2023 WL 5216493, at *6 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2023) (O’Connor, J.) (internal
quotations 	omitted). 	Here, 	Plaintiff 	holds 	the 	burden 	of 	proof 	to 	show, 	by 	a
preponderance of the evidence, his entitlement to benefits under the Plan. See Bellace, 2025
WL 	2345157, 	at 	*3; 	Leontieva, 	2024 	WL 	5185695, 	at 	*2 	(emphasis 	added).
Importantly, 	the 	Court’s 	review 	of MetLife’s 	denial 	of 	benefits 	is limited to 	the
administrative 	record, 	which 	“consists 	of 	relevant 	information 	made 	available 	to
[MetLife] prior to [Plaintiff’s] filing of a lawsuit and in a manner that gives [MetLife]
a fair opportunity to consider it.” Leontieva, 2024 WL 5185695, at *2 (quoting Est. of
Bratton v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 215 F.3d 516, 521 (5th Cir. 2000))
(emphasis added); see also Ariana M., 884 F.3d at 256.
III. 	Analysis
MetLife argues that Plaintiff is not entitled to accidental dismemberment
benefits under the Plan. See Doc. No. 32 at 5. Specifically, MetLife argues that Plaintiff
“cannot point to a single piece of evidence in the [a]dministrative [r]ecord that proves
that an accidental injury occurred that was the sole and direct cause of the loss of sight
Case 3:24-cv-02832-K Document 50 Filed 03/30/26 Page 6 of 11 PageID <pageID>

7
in his left eye.” Id. at 13 (emphasis original). MetLife further argues that the Plan’s
exclusion of any loss caused by a pre-existing illness or infirmity also bars Plaintiff’s
entitlement to benefits. See id. In all, MetLife asserts that Plaintiff fails to establish his
entitlement to benefits by a preponderance of the evidence. See id. at 14; Bellace, 2025
WL 2345157, at *3 (quoting Pike, 368 F. Supp. 3d at 1031) (de novo review under
preponderance of the evidence standard).
In 	his 	Response, 	Plaintiff 	provides 	almost 	no 	argument 	in 	opposition 	to
MetLife’s Motion. See generally Doc. No. 36. Rather, Plaintiff spends a substantial
amount of time attempting to convert MetLife’s Motion, correctly brought under Rule
52, into a motion for summary judgment. See id. at 6–9, ¶¶9–21. Plaintiff argues that
“[t]here are genuine disputes of material fact or law regarding Plaintiff’s loss of vision
from unavoidable exposure to lifting heavy wing panels.” Id. at 8, ¶15.
In 	its 	Reply, 	MetLife 	asserts 	that 	“[n]ot 	only 	has 	Plaintiff 	not 	met 	his
preponderance-of-the-evidence burden, but as a matter of law there is no evidence to
support his claim.” Doc. No. 38 at 6. MetLife also objects to a substantial amount of
the Appendix to Plaintiff’s Response (the “Response Appendix”) (Doc. No. 37) and
certain statements in Plaintiff’s Response. See id. at 2–3.
Having carefully conducted a de novo review of the administrative record, the
Court finds that Plaintiff fails to satisfy his burden of establishing his entitlement to
benefits by a preponderance of the evidence. For the following reasons, the Court
GRANTS the Motion.
Case 3:24-cv-02832-K Document 50 Filed 03/30/26 Page 7 of 11 PageID <pageID>

8
A. 	MetLife’s Objections
MetLife objects to most of the Response Appendix submitted by Plaintiff. See id.
Specifically, MetLife argues that all but one page of the Response Appendix “was not
made available to MetLife in making its claim determination and are not a part of the
administrative record[.]” Id. at 2. MetLife also objects to certain statements contained
in Plaintiff’s Response, arguing that Plaintiff alleges facts and cites evidence that were
not part of the administrative record. See id. at 3. Plaintiff provided no response to
MetLife’s objections.
The Court is unpersuaded by MetLife’s objections to the statements contained
in Plaintiff’s Response and overrules said objections. However, the Court does find
persuasive MetLife’s objections to the Response Appendix. For all of the persuasive
reasons stated by MetLife in its Reply, the Court sustains MetLife’s objections to the
Response 	Appendix 	and 	disregards 	the 	objected-to 	portions 	of 	the 	Response
Appendix. However, the Court notes that, even if it had considered the entirety of the
Response Appendix, the outcome herein would remain the same.
B. 	De Novo Review of the Administrative Record
For an insured to recover accidental dismemberment benefits under the Plan, he
must “sustain an accidental injury that is the Direct and Sole Cause of a Covered
Loss[.]” Doc. No. 33-1 at 20. Here, Plaintiff asserts a benefits claim based on his loss
of vision, which is a “Covered Loss” under the Plan. See id. at 13 (“[l]oss of sight means
permanent and uncorrectable loss of sight in the eye. Visual acuity must be 20/200 or
Case 3:24-cv-02832-K Document 50 Filed 03/30/26 Page 8 of 11 PageID <pageID>

9
worse in the eye or the field of vision must be less than 20 degrees”). Importantly, for
the injury to be the “Direct and Sole Cause” of the loss, the loss must occur “within 12
months of the date of the accidental injury and [must be] the direct result of the
accidental injury, independent of other causes.” Id. at 20 (emphasis added). MetLife
contends that the administrative record provides no evidence that the injury Plaintiff
sustained while inspecting the panels was the “Direct and Sole Cause” of his loss of
sight. Id. at 12–13.
The Court agrees with MetLife and finds that Plaintiff does not satisfy his
burden of establishing his entitlement to benefits by a preponderance of the evidence.
Plaintiff visited Dr. Abdelaziz on multiple occasions dating back to 2022. See Doc. No.
33-1 at 60. Plaintiff had numerous diagnosed issues in both eyes, including “vitreous
opacities” 	in 	both 	eyes, 	CRVO 	with 	macular 	edema 	and 	retinal 	hemorrhaging
secondary to CRVO in his left eye (arising during Plaintiff’s panel inspection), a “retinal
macroaneurysm” in his right eye, “pigmentary degeneration” in both eyes, and nuclear
sclerosis. Id. at 48, 59. Dr. Abdelaziz also filled out a statement of claim form provided
by MetLife. See id. at 59–66. In this form, Dr. Abdelaziz was asked if “the injury
described [was] solely responsible for the loss,” to which he answered “No.” Id. at 59.
Dr. Abdelaziz also answered “No” when asked if any illness caused the loss. Id. Further,
when asked to provide the date when Plaintiff’s vision “was irrevocably reduced to
20/200,” Dr. Abdelaziz answered “N/A.” Id. at 61. Dr. Abdelaziz also filled out certain
sections that were inapplicable to Plaintiff, but in those sections Dr. Abdelaziz
Case 3:24-cv-02832-K Document 50 Filed 03/30/26 Page 9 of 11 PageID <pageID>

10
answered “No” when asked if Plaintiff’s loss resulted from an accidental injury. See id.
at 62, 64. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds no evidence in Dr. Abdelaziz’s
statement of claim form and medical records that the injury that arose while Plaintiff
lifted the panel was the “Direct and Sole Cause” of Plaintiff’s loss of sight.
Along with his letter of appeal, Plaintiff provided MetLife with a letter from Dr.
Suarez, Plaintiff’s optometrist. See id. at 114. In this letter, Dr. Suarez stated that
Plaintiff had 20/20 vision in 2022, but his left eyesight deteriorated to 20/400 “[d]ue
to hemorrhaging, macular edema, and optic nerve swelling[.]” Id. She also stated that
CRVO is most common in patients with hypertension, but Plaintiff took medicine for
hypertension and was “well controlled.” Id. Importantly, she stated that lifting heavy
panels could contribute to CRVO, but she could not “determine what caused the
CRVO to occur, or if it still would have happened if [Plaintiff] had a less strenuous
job.” Id. Like Dr. Abdelaziz’s statements, Dr. Suarez’s letter provides insufficient
evidence that Plaintiff’s injury was the direct and sole cause of his loss. In fact, Dr.
Suarez could not even determine what caused Plaintiff’s CRVO. Id.
A careful review of the administrative record reveals that Plaintiff had a pre-
existing history of eye conditions, he had hypertension (which can contribute to
CRVO), and neither Dr. Abdelaziz nor Dr. Suarez made any statements indicating that
Plaintiff’s injury was the direct and sole cause of his loss. At most, the administrative
record merely shows that Plaintiff’s CRVO could have caused his loss of sight. In a de
novo review, Plaintiff must establish his entitlement to benefits by a preponderance of
Case 3:24-cv-02832-K Document 50 Filed 03/30/26 Page 10 of 11 PageID <pageID>

11
the evidence. See Bellace, 2025 WL 2345157, at *3; Leontieva, 2024 WL 5185695, at
*2. He fails to do so here. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff does not satisfy
his burden to establish his entitlement to benefits under the Plan.
IV. 	Conclusion
Having conducted a de novo review of the administrative record, the Court finds
that Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden to establish his entitlement to accidental
dismemberment benefits under the Plan. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS MetLife’s
Motion and AFFIRMS MetLife’s denial of benefits. As a result, Plaintiff’s claim against
MetLife is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
Signed March 30th , 2026.
____________________________________
ED KINKEADE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:24-cv-02832-K Document 50 Filed 03/30/26 Page 11 of 11 PageID <pageID>