Thomisee v. Comdisco Inc ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 00-30091
    Summary Calendar
    CHRISTELLE THOMISEE,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    COMDISCO INC.; ET AL.,
    Defendants,
    CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 98-CV-1640
    --------------------
    September 28, 2000
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Christelle Thomisee appeals the district court’s grant of
    summary judgment in favor of the Continental Casualty Company in
    an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) suit.       See
    29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.    Thomisee argues that summary judgment
    was inappropriate because Continental was not granted
    discretionary authority to define the terms of the insurance plan
    and that a de novo standard of review should have been applied by
    the district court.
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-30091
    -2-
    Continental was granted discretionary authority to determine
    eligibility.     See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 
    489 U.S. 101
    , 115 (1989); Meditrust Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Sterling Chems.,
    Inc., 
    168 F.3d 211
    , 213, 214 (5th Cir. 1999).    The medical
    evidence indicated that Thomisee experienced problems arising
    from her condition, but, after treatment, Thomisee did not
    experience many of the symptoms associated with a lupus-like
    disease and all of the pertinent medical tests were normal.     In
    addition, the evidence showed that Thomisee was not totally
    disabled within the meaning of the policy because she was capable
    of performing light, sedentary work.    Continental based its
    decision to deny benefits on the objective medical evidence, and
    its decision had a rational connection with the known facts.
    Accordingly, the conclusion by Continental that Thomisee was not
    totally disabled was supported by substantial evidence, and
    Continental did not abuse its discretion in denying benefits.
    See Meditrust Fin. Servs. 
    Corp., 168 F.3d at 215
    .
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-30091

Filed Date: 9/29/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021