Rhys A. Sterling v. Davita Inc.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RHYS A. STERLING,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DAVITA INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-35044
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-05834-RJB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 16, 2013**
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Rhys A. Sterling, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s order
dismissing his action alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) and the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) in connection with defendant’s verification
FILED
APR 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

12-35044 2
and determination of Sterling’s eligibility for continued dependent benefits under
his spouse’s employee healthcare plan. We review de novo a dismissal for failure
to state a claim. Paulsen v. CNF Inc., 559 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2009). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Sterling’s claim that defendant violated
its fiduciary duties under ERISA when it requested documentary proof of
Sterling’s eligibility to participate in defendant’s healthcare plan, as defendant’s
actions were authorized by the plan and consistent with its fiduciary duty under
ERISA to protect the financial integrity of the plan. See Cent. States, Se. & Sw.
Areas Pension Fund v. Cent. Transp., Inc., 472 U.S. 559, 570-71 (1985) (under
ERISA, a plan fiduciary must “discharge [its] duties with respect to a plan solely in
the interest of the participants and beneficiaries and . . . for the exclusive purpose
of providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries[,] and . . . defraying
reasonable expenses of administering the plan” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)).
The district court properly dismissed Sterling’s claim that defendant violated
its fiduciary duties under ERISA, as informed by the congressional intent
underlying HIPAA, when it prospectively cancelled Sterling’s healthcare coverage
after his spouse failed to provide proof of his eligibility to participate. See id.; see

-- 2 of 3 --

12-35044 3
also 26 C.F.R. § 54.9815-2712T(a) (prohibition on rescissions under 42 U.S.C.
§ 300gg-12 is limited to cancellations or discontinuances of coverage that have a
retroactive effect); Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S.
837, 842-44 (1984) (to the extent that a statutory provision is ambiguous, a court
may not substitute its own construction of the provision for a reasonable
interpretation made by the administrator of an agency to which Congress has
implicitly delegated interpretive authority).
Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees, raised in its answering brief, is
denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --