Free Statement - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

M IFC SM
1 Joseph E. Lambert (013923) C,`;;\H, ` Cgpv l
JOSEPH E. LAMBERT, P.C. - “ " I ‘ so
2 Mesa Commerce Center E 2 6 2005
1930 S. Alma School Rd. Ste. A-115 JUL
3 Mesa, Arizona 85210 { ’__ _ , I- 01,,,-1-
<48¤>755-0772 1 ~e»*~i$?;.*s.;?§§?Q§.2S~1
4 Attorney for Defendants {B, eg I M____,,______,g;_ DEPUTY
5
6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8 Carol Ann Wallace,
No. CV-04-0492 PHX RCB
9 Plaintiff,
I0 vs. DEFENDANTS’ CONTROVERTING
STATEMENT OF FACTS IN
11 Intel Corporation as Administrator, Intel SUPPORT OF RESPONSE TO
Corporation Long Term Disability Benefit PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FOR
12 Plan and Matrix Absence Management, SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Inc.,
gf E <:>
E?] 55 §<,g Defendants.
*4
15 Defendants respectfully submit their Controverting Statement of Facts in Support of
as si
§ 2 E 16 Response to Plaintiff’ s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment ("DCSOF"), pursuant to Fed.
17 R. Civ. P. 56 and LRCiv. 56.1 and in response to Plaintiff s Separate Statement of Facts in
18 Support of Her Cross—Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Defendants’ Motion
19 for Summary Judgment ("PSOF") (Docket No. 42).
20 1. Defendants do not contest PSOF 11 1, but would correct Plaintiff s citation to
21 the Plan document to be Separate Statement of Facts in Support of Defendants’ Motion for
22 Summary Judgment ("DSOF") (Docket No. 34), Exh. 1, Attachment A.
23 2. Defendants do not contest PSOF 11 2.
24 3. Defendants do not contest PSOF 11 3.
25 4. Defendants do not contest that Ms. Wallace seeks Long Term Disability
26 Benefits, as stated in PSOF 11 4, but deny that she is "Disabled" as that term is defined by the
27 Intel Long Term Disability Benefit Plan ("P1an”) at issue in this case. DSOF 1111 15-16, 20-
28 22, 25-26, 28-32, 34-35 and Exh. l, Attachment A.
Case 2:04—cv—00492-RCB Document 57 Filed 10/26/2005 Page 1 of 3

1 5. Defendants deny that PSOF 1] 5 is a complete and accurate version of the
2 Plan’s definition of "Disability." A copy of the Plan is provided in DSOF Exh. 1,
3 Attachment A, and the relevant definition is on page 19 of that Attachment.
4 6. Defendants deny that PSOF 1] 6 is a complete and accurate version of the
5 Plan’s definition of "Objective Medical Findings.” A copy of the Plan is provided in DSOF
6 Exh. 1, Attachment A, and the relevant definition is on page 19-20 of that Attachment.
7 7. Defendants do not contest that, as stated in PSOF 1] 7, Ms. Wallace, through
8 her attorney, submitted a letter identifying documents which she asserted to contain
9 "Objective Medical Findings" of her "Disability," as those terms are defined in the Plan. A
10 true copy of that letter, which speaks for itself, is provided in DSOF Exh. 3. Defendants
11 deny, however, that all the documents referenced by that letter were before the decision-
12 makers at the time their decisions were made, and deny that any of the documents contain
B E EN 13 "Objective Medical Findings" of a "Disability," as those terms are defined in the Plan.
ig? 14 DSOF 1]1] 15-16, 20-22, 25-26, 28-32, 34-35 and Exh. 1, Attachment A.
gg; 15 8. Defendants do not contest PSOF 1] 8.
gi: § gy 16 9. Defendants deny the allegation of PSOF 9 that Dr. Nachmanson, the physician
17 retained by Matrix Absence Management, Inc. to conduct an IME as to Plaintiff` s eligibility
18 for sh0rt—term disability benefits under an entirely separate plan, is cf the opinion that
19 Objective Medical Findings of a Disability, as those terms are defined in the Plan, are
20 manifested in either his IME or the medical record. DSOF 1]1] 14-16.
21 10. Defendants admit that Matrix Absence Management, Inc. denied Ms. Wallace
22 benefits under the Plan, that the Intel Disability Appeals Committee affirmed that denial, and
23 that the Plan’s definitions of "Disability” and "Objective Medical Findings" are
24 straightforward, but deny the allegation of PSOF 1] 10 that the denial of Ms. Wallace’s claim
25 was said by Defendants to be because "the objective findings were not substantial enough to
26 warrant payment of the claim." Neither of the denial letters sent Mr. Wallace makes any
27 statement about “substantial medical findings." DSOF Exh. 7 at 240-43; DSOF Exh. 2 1] 19
28
- 2 -
Case 2:04—cv—00492-RCB Document 57 Filed 10/26/2005 Page 2 of 3

1 and Attachment C thereto. Defendants also deny that Ms. Wa11ace’s medical record
2 contained Objective Medical Findings of a Disability, as those terms are defined in the Plan.
3 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this @2iay ef July, 2005.
4 JOSEPH E. LAMBER'1`, P.C.
5
/
6 0 4
Jos . Lam crt
7 Attorney for Defendants
8 COPY OF THE FOREC}/QING
hand—delivei·ed this ,2é 4/day of July, 2005, to:
9
Eric G. Slepian
10 SLEPIAN LAW OFFICE
3737 N. 7*h St., Ste. 106
11 Phoenix, Arizona 85014
Attorney for Plaintiff
12
g E O 13 (2
.3 uc EN ,·
E? 8?§§14
mg ?§*§l5
gi; § gv 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 3 -
Case 2:04—cv—00492-RCB Document 57 Filed 10/26/2005 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00492-RCB

Document 57

Filed 10/26/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00492-RCB

Document 57

Filed 10/26/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00492-RCB

Document 57

Filed 10/26/2005

Page 3 of 3