Joanne Harp v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [11-50352 Affirmed ] Judge: TMR , Judge: JES , Judge: ECP Mandate pull date is 12/29/2011 [11-50352]

Case: 11-50352

Document: 00511689541

Page: 1

Date Filed: 12/08/2011

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Fifth Circuit

FILED
December 8, 2011

No. 11-50352
Summary Calendar

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

JOANNE HARP,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:08-CV-655

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Joanne Harp appeals following the district court’s grant of summary
judgment to the defendant in her suit alleging that Liberty Mutual Insurance
Company breached its duties under the Texas Insurance Code and acted in bad
faith by denying and delaying benefits for her workers’ compensation claim.
Reviewing the record de novo, see Dickie Brennan & Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co.,

*

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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

Case: 11-50352

Document: 00511689541

Page: 2

Date Filed: 12/08/2011

No. 11-50352
636 F.3d 683, 685 (5th Cir. 2011), we AFFIRM essentially for the reasons given
by the district court.
1. The undisputed record evidence shows that Liberty Mutual paid Harp
temporary income benefits throughout the claims process. It also shows
that Harp was provided with prescription medication, a surgical nerve
block injection, and a walking boot for her compensable injury. Liberty
Mutual disputed whether the extent of Harp’s foot injury included chronic
femoral pain syndrome, a foot cyst, knee pain, bursitis, and complex
regional pain syndrome (CRPS), but the record fails to show that specific
medical treatment or income benefits were improperly denied. Conclusory
assertions by Harp’s treating physician that the carrier was denying all
medical treatment and medications are belied by the record and fail to
create a genuine issue of material fact.
2. We find no reversible error in the district court’s refusal to consider
evidence that Harp submitted for the first time in her objections to the
magistrate judge’s report.

At most, the evidence constituted only a

scintilla of evidence and is insufficient to defeat summary judgment. See
Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).
Most of the evidence is also contradicted by the record showing Liberty
Mutual’s payment of medical and income benefits.
AFFIRMED.

2