FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT D. ALVIS, No. 09-16048
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00984-MCE-
DAD
v.
AT&T INTEGRATED DISABILITY MEMORANDUM *
SERVICE CENTER, individually and as
administered by Sedgwick CMS;
SEDGWICK CMS; AT&T INCOME
DISABILITY PLAN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 14, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and MOODY, Senior
District Judge.**
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable James Maxwell Moody, Senior United States District
Judge for the District of Arkansas, sitting by designation.
Appellant Robert D. Alvis (Alvis) appeals the district court’s decision
granting summary judgment in favor of AT&T Integrated Disability Service Center
(AT&T IDSC).
We have previously held that “[w]hen an administrator can show that it has
engaged in an ongoing, good faith exchange of information between the
administrator and the claimant, the court should give the administrator’s decision
broad deference notwithstanding a minor irregularity.” Abatie v. Alta Health &
Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 972 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted). AT&T IDSC consistently contacted Alvis and informed
him that his additional evidence did not meet the disability plan requirements for
demonstrating the existence of a disabling condition. Consequently, we conclude
that AT&T IDSC engaged in the type of dialogue mandated by ERISA, and its
decision is entitled to deference. See id.
We also conclude that AT&T’ IDSC’s decision was reasonable because, in
denying Alvis’ claim, AT&T IDSC relied upon two independent physicians who
reviewed all the medical records. See Montour v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins.
Co., 588 F.3d 623, 629 (9th Cir. 2009), as amended (“In the absence of a conflict,
judicial review of a plan administrator’s benefits determination involves a
straightforward application of the abuse of discretion standard. . . . [and] can be
2
upheld if it is grounded on any reasonable basis.”) (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted) (emphasis in the original).
AFFIRMED.
3