ID 925-29.) However, Hipple asserts in his Reply Brief (for the first time and in apparent contradiction to the position he takes in his Motion) that he did attempt to 2 appeal the denial of his LTD benefits on Ma– the final day of the appeal period – but he sent his appeal to an incorrect address. (See LTD Denial Letter, ECF #19-2.) Hipple appears to admit in his Motion that he did not file an administrative appeal of the denial of his LTD claim. ID 925.) Matrix and/or Reliance Standard denied the application on September 30, 2013, on the same ground that Matrix had denied his application for STD benefits – namely, that Hipple was not a participant in the Plan on the date of his disability. ID 996.) Hipple filed his application for LTD benefits with Matrix “sometime during July 2013.” (Mot. ID 996-97.) Specifically, Hipple seeks to add a claim that Defendants and Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (“Reliance Standard”) (the claims administrator for Denso’s long-term disability (“LTD”) plan, which was not named as a party in the Complaint) wrongfully denied his application for LTD benefits. ID 929.) On J– the day after the parties agreed to settle Hipple’s STD claim – Hipple filed the instant Motion seeking leave to amend his Complaint to add both a new claim and a new party. (See Motion to Amend Compl., ECF #19 at 7, Pg. (See Opinion and Order, ECF #17.) On July 21, 2014, the parties settled Hipple’s claim for STD benefits, thereby resolving – in its entirety – Hipple’s Complaint. (See Complaint, ECF #1.) On June 13, 2014, entered an Opinion and Order (1) vacating Matrix’s final determination denying STD benefits to Hipple and (2) remanding the matter to Matrix for an additional review of Hipple’s claim to determine whether he otherwise qualified for STD benefits. In his Complaint, Hipple alleged that Matrix wrongly denied his claim for short-term disability (“STD”) benefits on the ground that Hipple was not a participant in the Plan on the date of his disability. (“Denso”), and the Denso Health & Welfare Plan (the “Plan”) (collectively, the “Defendants). (“Matrix”), Denso International America, Inc. _/ ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF #19) On March 8, 2013, Plaintiff Paul Hipple (“Hipple”) filed the instant action against Matrix Absence Management, Inc. 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION PAUL HIPPLE, Plaintiff, Case No.
0 kommentar(er)
