Sharon Bardill v. the Lincoln National Life Insurance Company;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHARON BARDILL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-16960
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-03025-CRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 17, 2013
San Francisco, California
Before: NOONAN, O’SCANNLAIN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Sharon Bardill appeals the district court’s judgment upholding a fiduciary’s
decision to deny long term disability benefits in her ERISA action for disability
insurance benefits and related relief under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. against Lincoln
FILED
MAY 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
National Life Insurance Co., et al. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§1291. We affirm.
The parties are familiar with the facts of this case. This court reviews de novo
a district court’s legal determinations in ERISA cases, including the choice and
application of the standard of review to decisions by ERISA plan administrators.
Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 962 (9th Cir. 2006). This court
reviews the district court’s underlying finding of fact for clear error. Id.
The district court correctly reviewed Lincoln’s determination for abuse of
discretion after finding that Lincoln’s structural conflict warranted a low level of
weight, a finding which Bardill does not challenge. The district court did not err
when it found that there was no abuse of discretion by the administrator. The plan
clearly vested discretionary authority with the fiduciary. There was no abuse of
discretion by Lincoln when it denied Bardill benefits for physical disability but
granted benefits for mental disability. The medical findings were such that Bardill
was depressed but was capable of physical work. Lincoln complied with ERISA
regulations and properly considered Bardill’s chronic pain. Furthermore, the district
court did not err when it took into account Bardill’s ability to do chores and to go
on a cruise when making its decision.
We, therefore, affirm the district court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --