eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2002-06

Sanders v. Metro Life Ins Co ( 2002 )


Menu:
 
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-60903
Summary Calendar
RHODA J. SANDERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:00-CV-731-LN
--------------------
June 21, 2002
Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rhoda J. Sanders appeals the district court’s grant of the
motion for summary judgment filed by Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (“MetLife”), the issuer of a disability insurance policy
under which she seeks benefits.   Sanders contends that the policy
in question fell under the safe harbor provisions found in the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”),
    29 U.S.C. § 1001
     et seq. and that the district court thus erred in
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 01-60903
-2-
determining that the provisions of ERISA applied to this lawsuit.
Sanders further argues that, even if the district court did not
err in determining that ERISA governed this action, then its
judgment must still be reversed because it erred in holding that
MetLife did not abuse its discretion in denying her claim for
benefits.
This court reviews a district court’s grant of summary
judgment de novo.   Threadgill v. Prudential Sec. Group, Inc.,
    145 F.3d 286
    , 292 (5th Cir. 1998).    Barhan v. Ry-Ron Inc.,
    121 F.3d 198
    , 202 (5th Cir. 1997).    Summary judgment is appropriate if the
record discloses “that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law.”   FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c).    In making this
determination, this court must evaluate the facts in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party.      Todd v. AIG Life Ins.
Co.,
    47 F.3d 1448
    , 1451 (5th Cir. 1995).
Sanders has not shown that the district court erred in
determining that the policy at issue did not fall under ERISA’s
safe harbor provisions.   Sanders’s employer, Allstate Insurance
Company, both endorsed the policy and administered it.       This is
sufficient to show that the policy did not fall under ERISA’s
safe harbor provisions.     Hansen v. Cont’l Ins. Co.,
    940 F.2d 971
    ,
976-77 (5th Cir. 1991).
Sanders also has not shown that the district court erred in
determining that MetLife did not abuse its discretion in denying
No. 01-60903
-3-
her claim for long term disability benefits.   The administrative
record supported MetLife’s determination that Sanders had not
shown through medical evidence that she was totally disabled as
that term was defined by the plan.   See Vega v. Nat’l Life Ins.
Servs., Inc.,
    188 F.3d 287
    , 296-97 (5th Cir. 1999) (en banc);
Estate of Bratton v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co.,
    215 F.3d 516
    , 526
(5th Cir. 2000).   Sanders argues for the first time in this
appeal that the administrative record was incomplete.   Because
she did not raise this issue in the district court, we will not
consider it.   Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co.,
    183 F.3d 339
    ,
342 (5th Cir. 1999).
Sanders has not shown that the district court erred in
granting MetLife’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing her
suit.   Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.