Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Timothy M. HARRIS Plaintiff - Appellant v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN Defendant - Appellee
[Unpublished]
Timothy Harris appeals following the district court's 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) action arising from the denial of long-term disability (LTD) benefits. Upon careful review, see Carrow v. Standard Ins. Co., 664 F.3d 1254, 1258 (8th Cir. 2012) (de novo review of grant of summary judgment; if plan reserves discretionary power to construe terms or determine eligibility, administrator's decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion), we agree with the district court that appellee Federal Express Corporation Long Term Disability Plan (the Plan) did not abuse its discretion in interpreting the term “any compensable employment,” as its interpretation required more than a nominal ability to work, and thus did not conflict with the Plan's goals or with ERISA's stated purpose. See McClain v. Eaton Corp. Disability Plan, 740 F.3d 1059, 1067-68 (6th Cir. 2014) (rejecting plaintiff's argument that ability to do part-time sedentary work was “pittance” that was insufficient to find her able to do other work under plan definition of disability); Finley v. Special Agents Mut. Benefit Ass'n, Inc., 957 F.2d 617, 621 (8th Cir. 1992) (setting out factors to determine whether interpretation of plan terms is reasonable). We also agree that the Plan did not abuse its discretion in denying Harris's claim for LTD benefits. See Johnston v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 916 F.3d 712, 715-16 (8th Cir. 2019) (because plan administrator had new evidence supporting its decision to terminate LTD benefits, it did not err by not obtaining vocational opinion); Carrow, 664 F.3d at 1259 (plan administrator was not bound by Social Security Administration's disability findings, and reports of treating and consulting physicians constituted substantial evidence supporting plan administrator's decision that claimant was not disabled).
The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
FOOTNOTES
1. The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 21-1049
Decided: August 20, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)