CA1: DOJ employee loses ERISA claim on procedural and ERISA grounds

Serreze Desrosiers v. Hartford Life, No. 06-2609.  Starting at the top with a garden-variety denial-of-long-term disability benefits ERISA case.  What sets this apart is the plaintiff is an attorney that worked at the US Trustees’s Office. She enrolled in the Federal Employee Group Long Term Disability Plan ("the Plan"), which is sponsored by the Department of Justice Recreation Association ("DJRA").  Got it.  The “recreation” is a “Long Term Disability Plan.”    Whatever the case, the First makes it clear: this person is a real person with a real job.  Yet, they still affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment.  Anyway, she fell off a swing, was hit by the door of a car, and cut her hand.  This seemingly minor injuries, according to her, caused major neurologic damage. 

Notwithstanding ERISA issue in this case, she raises a procedural challenge.  In granting summary judgment to the defendant on state-law claims, the District Court relied upon an affidavit submitted with the defendant’s reply.  The First says that she isn’t arguing that the result reached was incorrect, but rather that the reliance was wrong.  The First says, “Ha!  You should have objected to the additional material contained in the affidavit.  The issue is waived!  We lawyers know this stuff.”

Regarding the summary judgment on the ERISA claims, the First says: 1) it doesn’t matter whether job description issues were considered by Hartford at trial or in the administrative appeal posture; 2) because this claim could be proven with “objective” evidence, unlike pure “pain” cases, there was no problem with Hartford requiring such evidence.