CA1: ERISA denials and FRCP 59

Kansky v. Coca-Cola Bottling, No. 06-2042.  Oh boy!  This is an ERISA lawsuit challenging a plan administrator's decision to deny the plaintiff long-term disability benefits due to his chronic fatigue syndrome.  The First does note that it is having some trouble figuring out a theory of what the proper standard of review of ERISA benefit denials might be, and that there is currently a pending petition for rehearing en banc in Denmark v. Liberty Life Assurance Co., 481 F.3d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 2007) (our coverage here).  But, on the merits, the First notes that the record reveals that his CFS is related to his pre-existing condition of schizophrenia. 

But, there are important things in here of general interest to people outside the ERISA world.

1. A FRCP 59(e) motion was properly denied, because there was no “manifest error of law” or newly discovered evidence.  The plaintiff had argued that the District Court had conducted “its own” medical research, relied on things the physicians with less qualifications than he wanted to see said.  But the First simply says that the District Court did nothing of the sort.
2. There was no abuse of discretion in denying a motion for sanctions for the defendant’s failure to produce documents, even though they were late, because the lateness caused no prejudice.