Psychiatric Record Discoverable as Brady Material.

ularly in mental health cases (Javery v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 741 F.3d 686 (6th Cir. 2014), and Smith v. Bayer Corp., 275 F App’x 495 (6th Cir. 2008)). The lack of an interview with Ms. Okuno raised “questions about the thoroughness and accuracy of the benefits determination” (Okuno, p 610, citing Shaw v. AT&T Umbrella Ben. Plan No. 1, 795 F.3d 538, 550 (6th Cir. 2015)). Further, Reliance failed to consult with medical professionals with expertise in mental health. The court pointed out that the language of ERISA § 2560-503-1 (h)(3)(iii) (2001) states that when any adverse determination is based on a medical judgment, the fiduciary shall “consult with a health care professional who has appropriate training and experience in the field of medicine involved in the medical judgment.” The Okuno case emphasizes the importance of using consultants with the relevant expertise. Anxiety and depression are frequent components of physical ailments, particularly those resulting in disability. If the mere presence of these psychiatric symptoms obviated the disability claim, as a practical matter, virtually all disability claims based on physical ailments would be denied. For evaluators, the ruling reinforces the importance of a thorough examination and at times, an in-person examination and consultation with the claimant’s treatment providers. Ms. Okuno’s case was remanded to the district court. The district court directed Reliance to undertake another review of Ms. Okuno’s claim that, apart from her psychiatric diagnoses, she was disabled as a result of her physical ailments.