Diana Keller v. AT&T Disability Income Plan

Filing 511129029

Diana Keller v. AT&T Disability Income Plan

Doc. 511129029

Case: 09-51000

Document: 00511129029

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/02/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
June 2, 2010 N o . 09-51000 S u m m a r y Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

D I A N A KELLER,

P la in t if f - Appellant v. A T & T DISABILITY INCOME PLAN,

D e fe n d a n t - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Texas U S D C No. 5:08-CV-568

B e fo r e REAVLEY, JOLLY, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* T h is is an appeal from the district on court's order granting ERISA

D e fe n d a n t /A p p e lle e

summary

judgment

Plaintiff/Appellant's

d is a b ilit y claims. Finding no error, we AFFIRM.

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-51000

Document: 00511129029

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/02/2010

No. 09-51000 1. K e l le r first argues that the plan administrator erred by denying her shortt e r m disability benefits under the Plan. However, we agree with the d is t r ic t court that the physician reports in the record provide sufficient e v id e n c e to support the administrator's decision. Moreover, Appellant's e v id e n c e considered with the extensive medical evidence before the a d m i n i s tr a t o r do not necessarily show that her condition prevented her fr o m performing her job duties. The administrator's decision is entitled to deference. See Meditrust Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Sterling Chems., Inc., 168 F .3d 211, 215 (5th Cir. 1999). 2. A p p e lla n t also argues that she was denied "a full and fair review" of her d i s a b ilit y claims in violation of 29 U.S.C. � 1133(2). Specifically, Keller a r g u e s that the administrator changed its grounds for denying benefits b a s e d on new evidence introduced after the denial but before appeal. The in tr o d u c t io n of new evidence after a denial of claims does not restart the r e v ie w process. See Cooper v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 592 F.3d 645, 654 (5th C i r . 2009). Moreover, an administrator does not unlawfully change the b a s is of its review if it concludes that the new evidence fails to contradict o r merely supports its original assessment. Id. In the instant case, it was n o t the plan administrator, but Keller, who changed her grounds for s e e k in g benefits on appeal by introducing evidence of an intervening a c c i d e n t . After considering Keller's additional evidence and the reports o f the reviewing physicians, the administrator affirmed its original d e t e r m in a t io n that Keller remained capable of performing her job duties, d e s p it e the intervening accident. We therefore hold that the

a d m in is tr a t o r has substantially complied with ERISA, and "the purpose o f � 1133 has been fulfilled." Id. (cite and quotation marks omitted). A F F IR M E D .

2