Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
December 6, 2021, Decided; December 6, 2021, Filed
NO. 15 C 9452
Memorandum Opinion and Order
As part of the benefits she received from her employer, Plaintiff Susan Hennen received long-term disability benefits from Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (the "Plan"). Hennen claims MetLife improperly terminated her benefits under the Plan in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). The parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment. For the reasons explained below, MetLife's motion for summary judgment is granted, Hennen's motion for summary judgment is denied, and MetLife's motion for summary judgment on its claim for offset of overpaid benefits is denied.
Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). The Court considers the entire evidentiary [*2] record and must view all the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences from that evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Ball v. Kotter, 723 F.3d 813, 821 (7th Cir. 2013). To defeat summary judgment, a nonmovant must produce more than "a mere scintilla of evidence" and come forward with "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Harris N.A. v. Hershey, 711 F.3d 794, 798 (7th Cir. 2013). Ultimately, summary judgment is warranted only if a reasonable jury could not return a verdict for the nonmovant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986).
Where the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court applies this standard to each motion separately to determine whether there is a genuine dispute of material fact and whether judgment should be entered as a matter of law. Marcatante v. City of Chicago, 657 F.3d 433, 438-39 (7th Cir. 2011). In ruling on each cross-motion for summary judgment, the Court draws inferences in favor of the party against whom the motion under consideration is made. Siliven v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 635 F.3d 921, 925 (7th Cir. 2011).
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 232856 *; 2021 WL 5769529
SUSAN HENNEN, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
Prior History: Hennen v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152467, 2017 WL 4164027 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 20, 2017)
radiculopathy, benefits, testing, disability, pain, termination, diagnosis, conduction, argues, needle, nerve, arbitrary and capricious, summary judgment, records, leg, left leg, lumbar, conflicting interest, objective evidence, right leg, studies, muscle, summary judgment motion, recruitment, abnormal, clinical, parties, rational support, soft tissue, electrodiagnostic