Harris v. Gamble Guest Care Corp. , 84 F. App'x 459 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS January 7, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-30679
Summary Calendar
JAMES K. HARRIS, Executor of the Estate
of Jennifer Harris,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GAMBLE GUEST CARE CORP.; GAMBLE GUEST
CARE CORP. EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN; EMPLOYEE
BENEFITS SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants-Appellants.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:01-CV-264
--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gamble Guest Care Corporation (“Gamble”), Gamble Guest Care
Corporation Employee Benefit Plan (“Plan”), and Employee Benefits
Services, Inc., appeal the district court's ruling in favor of
Jennifer Harris on her claim for health benefits from an Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) governed
employee welfare benefit plan; 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. This
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-30679
-2-
court reviews Gamble’s denial of Harris’s claim for benefits for
abuse of discretion. See Threadgill v. Prudential Securities
Group, Inc., 145 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1998).
The appellants argue that their interpretation of the Plan
to require Harris to be “actively at work” on February 1, 2000,
was legally correct. However, their interpretation of the Plan
was legally incorrect because the Plan did not contain an
“actively at work” requirement and because the correct
eligibility date was January 1, 2000. See Wildbur v. ARCO
Chemical Co., 974 F.2d 631, 637-38 (5th Cir. 1992). Furthermore,
Gamble’s interpretation of the Plan and its denial of benefits to
Harris were an abuse of discretion. See id.
The appellants also argue that the district court should not
have awarded Harris attorneys’ fees. However, the district court
did not abuse its discretion in awarding Harris attorneys’ fees.
See Iron Workers Local No. 272 v. Bowen, 624 F.2d 1255, 1266 (5th
Cir. 1980).
Therefore, the district court's ruling in favor of Harris
and its award of attorneys’ fees to Harris are AFFIRMED.