Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the District of Oregon
February 14, 2018, Decided; February 14, 2018, Filed
OPINION & ORDER
HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Plaintiff A.G. brings this Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") action against Defendant Unum Life Insurance Company of America, contending that Defendant improperly denied Plaintiff's application for disability benefits. Defendant now moves to compel Plaintiff to indicate Plaintiff's full name, rather than Plaintiff's initials, in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a). I grant the motion.
Plaintiff was employed by Dickstein Shapiro LLP as an associate attorney, starting on September 24, 2012. Compl. ¶6, ECF 1. By November 27, 2013, Plaintiff had become totally disabled. Id. Plaintiff's physician ordered Plaintiff to cease work. Id. On December 1, 2013, Plaintiff stopped working as an attorney. Id. Since that time, Plaintiff has remained unemployed and under medical treatment. Id.
In 2016, Plaintiff filed a claim for long-term-disability ("LTD") benefits under Dickstein Shapiro LLP's Group Plan, which is administrated by Defendant. [*2] Id. at ¶¶2, 17. On February 22, 2017, Defendant paid Plaintiff one month's benefit under the Plan while it completed its review of Plaintiff's claim. Id. at ¶21. The next day Defendant denied Plaintiff's claim. Id. at ¶22. Plaintiff pursued an administrative appeal, and on July 28, 2017, Defendant granted short-term-disability ("STD") benefits but denied LTD benefits. Id. at ¶¶23-25. On September 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant, using only Plaintiff's initials, seeking recovery of LTD benefits, a declaration of continuing benefits, and fees and costs. See Compl. ¶¶30-62.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24752 *; 2018 WL 903463
A.G., an individual, Plaintiff, v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Maine corporation, as administrator of the Dickstein Shapiro LLP Group Long Term Disability Plan, Defendant.
Subsequent History: Summary judgment granted, in part, summary judgment denied, in part by Gary v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40672, 2018 WL 1309991 (D. Or., Mar. 12, 2018)
Motion granted by Gary v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64186, 2018 WL 1811470 (D. Or., Apr. 17, 2018)
Motion granted by, in part, Motion denied by, in part Gary v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233589, 2018 WL 10335683 (D. Or., Sept. 6, 2018)
Summary judgment granted by, Motion granted by Gary v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 388 F. Supp. 3d 1254, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71740, 2019 WL 1904679 (D. Or., Apr. 29, 2019)
Partial summary judgment granted by Gary v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229070 (D. Or., Nov. 29, 2021)
anonymity, severe, fears, public interest, factors, vulnerable, parties, courts, allegations, retaliation, balancing, benefits, argues, future harm, disabilities, blacklisted, pseudonyms, contends