AMANDA MARTIN v. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CLEVELAND; MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT, INC.; LONG TERM DISABILITY INCOME PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Azya Thornton on May 7, 2026

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ON BRIEF: Andrew S. November, LINER LEGAL LLC, Cleveland, Ohio, Eric S. McDaniel, Matthew J. Kasper, MALYUK MCDANIEL KASPER LLC, Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ON BRIEF: Dustin M. Dow, Lauren T. Stuy, BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellees.

Judge(s): GIBBONS, THAPAR, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Amanda Martin filed this lawsuit after unsuccessfully appealing the denial of long-term disability benefits pursuant to the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland’s disability income plan. The Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (the Bank) named Matrix Absence Management, Inc. (Matrix), as administrator of the Bank’s Long Term Disability Income Plan for Employees of the Federal Reserve System (the Plan). Martin, who experienced symptoms associated with long-haul COVID-19, filed a claim for benefits under the Plan. Matrix denied her claim and Martin appealed that denial. Following its review on appeal, Matrix issued Martin a final denial. Martin then sued the Bank, Matrix, and the Plan in federal district court. Because the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) does not cover governmental plans administered by agencies of the United States, Martin brought breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims against the defendants. See 29 U.S.C. § 1003(b)(1). In the course of this litigation, Martin moved for the district court to permit discovery outside of the administrative record, but the court denied her motion. Martin subsequently moved for the district court to permit limited discovery outside of the administrative record, but the court denied most of her requests. The defendants and Martin moved for judgment on the administrative record. The district court granted judgment on the administrative record for the defendants and denied Martin’s motion. Martin appealed from the district court’s judgment and the court’s two orders denying her discovery. We affirm the district court because it properly applied the relevant legal standards, denied Martin’s requests for discovery, and determined that Matrix did not arbitrarily deny Martin long-term disability (LTD) benefits pursuant to the Plan. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court.

Attachments: