Eldie L. Cruz, M.d. v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
ELDIE L. CRUZ, M.D.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 21-2018
(D.C. No. 1:18-CV-00974-RB-SCY)
(D. N.M.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before McHUGH, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Defendant Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company denied long-term
disability insurance benefits to one of its insureds, Plaintiff Eldie L. Cruz, M.D.,
prompting Cruz to bring this action under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001–1461. The district court reviewed the
insurance company’s decision de novo, upheld it, and entered final judgment against
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
September 1, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 21-2018 Document: 010110569900 Date Filed: 09/01/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Cruz. He timely filed a notice of appeal (we therefore have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291), and he has represented himself before this court.
Cruz tells us, “The only argument I want to make is that I feel like the
7th amendment of the U.S. Constitution doesn’t include me after what has happened
in this case.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 2. Drawing on his experience as a practicing
physician, Cruz explains that medical records are frequently wrong because, for
example, “things get heard wrong, doctors don’t write [their] notes right away, they
cut and paste from other notes . . . , [and] they confuse one patient with another.” Id.
at 1. Cruz believes he should have had an opportunity to demonstrate as much to a
jury, so he asks us to “uphold [his] 7th amendment right by striking down the part of
ERISA that denies a trial by jury.” Id. at 3.
ERISA does not explicitly deny a trial by jury. This court holds, however, that
an action to recover ERISA-governed benefits is equitable, not legal, and so does not
fall within the Seventh Amendment’s civil jury trial guarantee. See Adams v. Cyprus
Amax Minerals Co., 149 F.3d 1156, 1158–62 (10th Cir. 1998); see also Graham v.
Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 589 F.3d 1345, 1355–57 (10th Cir. 2009) (reaffirming
Adams over an argument that an intervening Supreme Court decision had abrogated
it). “[W]e cannot overrule the judgement of another panel of this court absent
en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision by the Supreme Court.”
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Burton, 270 F.3d 942, 947 (10th Cir. 2001). By
definition this panel is not sitting en banc, and Cruz has not pointed us to any
superseding Supreme Court authority, nor are we aware of any. Accordingly, we
Appellate Case: 21-2018 Document: 010110569900 Date Filed: 09/01/2021 Page: 2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
may not grant the only relief he requests. We therefore affirm the district court’s
judgment.
Entered for the Court
Carolyn B. McHugh
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 21-2018 Document: 010110569900 Date Filed: 09/01/2021 Page: 3

-- 3 of 3 --