Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
No. 07-1549
JERRY ISAACS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
ROBERT BOSCH SHORT TERM DISABILITY PLAN,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:06-cv-00288-DCN)
Argued:
Decided:
Isaacs
(Isaacs)
brought
this
action
seeking
I.
Isaacs appeals the district courts grant of summary judgment
in favor of MetLife.
as
the
administrator
for
separate
Bosch
short-term
to
submit
notice
of
claim
and
supporting
written
18,
2005,
Isaacs
initiated
telephonic
claim
On
for
Isaacs
MetLife that she had not advised Isaacs to stop working, and that
in her opinion Isaacs could safely perform his job duties while on
his current medication.
In a
J.A. 142.
J.A. 65.
MetLife
Id.
his doctor in July 2005, who completed them and later faxed a copy
to MetLife.
Woods and Boschs head of personnel for the Plan, and was told by
them that these forms were all that was needed and that [he] would
be contacted if anything further was required.
In October 2005, Isaacs retained counsel.
J.A. 209.3
On November 3,
J.A. 109-11.
On January 9,
J.A. 107.
Counsel filed the complaint in this matter less than three weeks
later, on January 29, 2006.
Term Disability Plan as a defendant and dropped his STD claim from
this case.
state court.
The
summary judgment.
Isaacs appeals.
II.
We review de novo the district courts grant of summary
judgment.
See Ellis v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 126 F.3d 228, 232
matter of law.
to
his
attorneys
November
2005
and
January
2006
MetLife
responds that Isaacs never actually filed an LTD claim and that it
processed and ultimately rejected the only properly-filed claims-the
STD
and
FMLA
claims--based
on
insufficient
evidence
of
disability.
Isaacss argument ultimately implodes as it attempts to do two
inherently
contradictory
things
simultaneously.
Isaacs
fully
2005 that he understood that Isaacss STD and LTD claims were one
and the same, and in January 2006, referencing a single claim
number, that he was appealing the denial of both Mr. Isaacs claim
for short term disability and long term disability benefits. J.A.
See
J.A. 194 (describing the two methods for filing a claim under the
LTD Plan).5
B.
Isaacs also argues that his receipt, completion, and return of
the forms Woods gave him on June 6, 2005 was the functional
We disagree.
Aside from the February 18, 2005 claim discussed above, Isaacs has
never properly initiated any other claim for benefits with MetLife.
Moreover, the documents faxed by Isaacss doctor referenced either
the STD and FMLA claims or no claim at all.
the faxed forms were insufficient to initiate a claim under the LTD
Plan.6
Isaacss
attorneys
subsequent
letters
were
likewise
III.
Isaacss
actions
have
presented
us
with
record
which