
    Ruben GONZALES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-56543.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Nov. 5, 2015.
    Filed Nov. 18, 2015.
    Barbara Ann Casino, Esquire, John P. Stennett, Esquire, Stennett & Casino, San Diego, CA, Glenn R. Kantor, Managing Senior Counsel, Kantor & Kantor LLP, Northridge, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Michael Bernard Bernacchi, Esquire, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SCHROEDER and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges and CHHABRIA, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Vince Chhabria, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ruben Gonzales applied for disability benefits under an ERISA plan. Unum, the plan administrator, denied Gonzales’s application for benefits. Gonzales then brought this action against Unum. The district court affirmed Unum’s denial of benefits, and Gonzales appealed. We affirm.

All of Gonzales’s arguments on appeal are- without merit. Unum properly disclosed the fact that it had communicated with Gonzales’s doctors. See Saffon v. Wells Fargo & Co. Long Term Disability Plan, 522 F.3d 863, 873 n. 4 (9th Cir.2008). The district court adequately considered evidence that Unum had a conflict of interest. See Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 967-69 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc). And for the reasons expressed in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned decision, Unum did not abuse its discretion in determining whether Gonzales was disabled under the Long-Term Disability Plan.

AFFIRMED: 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . Though Gonzales asserted at oral argument that he also intended to challenge the denial of benefits under the Short-Term Disability Plan, any such challenge is waived. See In re Lowenschuss, 67 F.3d 1394, 1402 (9th Cir.1995) ("An issue not discussed in a brief, although mentioned in the Statement of Issues, is deemed to be waived.”).
     