United States District Court, D. Oregon
Stephen G. Nagle, Stephen Nagle & Associates, Austin, Texas, Richard H. Rizk, Richard Rizk, Attorney at Law, Portland, Oregon, Attorneys for plaintiff.
Sarah J. Ryan, Jackson Lewis LLP, Portland, Oregon, Attorney for defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
ANN AIKEN, Chief District Judge.
Craig Fontenot ("plaintiff") filed this action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a) (1) (B), against Intel Corporation Long Term Disability Plan ("defendant"), alleging that defendant wrongfully terminated his claim for long-term disability benefits. Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff's claim as untimely or, alternatively, transfer venue. For the reasons set forth below, defendant's motion is granted and this case is dismissed.
At all relevant times, plaintiff was employed as an engineer at one of Intel's Oregon locations. Intel holds a long-term disability ("LTD") plan with defendant ("the Policy"),  under which disabled employees are entitled to monthly insurance benefits. While the Policy does not place any specific limitations on the types of qualifying conditions, it precludes coverage for impairments that are not supported by "Objective Medical Findings." Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. Dismiss Ex. E, at 4-6.
In early 2005, plaintiff filed a claim for short-term disability ("STD") benefits under the Policy, alleging that he could no longer work because of common variable immune deficiency, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and depression. Defendant approved plaintiff's claim; he received STD benefits beginning on June 13, 2005. After obtaining the maximum in STD benefits, plaintiff applied for and was awarded LTD benefits.
At some unspecified time, plaintiff moved to Texas and was awarded Social Security disability benefits.
On January 13, 2009, defendant requested an update from plaintiff concerning his medical conditions. Because it did not receive a response from plaintiff, defendant terminated his benefits on February 13, 2009. Plaintiff subsequently replied to defendant's inquiry, after which his benefits were reinstated.
On June 5, 2009, defendant terminated plaintiff's LTD benefits, based on its determination that his underlying impairments could not be confirmed by "Objective Medical Findings." Plaintiff appealed defendant's adverse claim determination. On January 17, 2012, defendant upheld its discontinuation of plaintiff's LTD benefits. See Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. Dismiss Ex. A.
On January 23, 2012, plaintiff sent a letter to defendant, disputing its determination and requesting the opportunity to review and respond to the new medical evidence cited to by defendant in its January 17, 2012, decision. See Pl.'s Resp. to Mot. Dismiss Ex. 1, at 1.
On February 7, 2012, defendant furnished the information sought by plaintiff in his previous correspondence and informed him of a supplemental voluntary appeals process. See Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. Dismiss Ex. B. Plaintiff elected not to pursue that remedy.
On January 28, 2014, plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court to recover LTD benefits from the allegedly wrongful termination date through the present. On April 14, 2013, defendant moved to dismiss ...