Everett v. Federal Express Corp. , 85 F. App'x 977 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 16, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-30447
Summary Calendar
KATHERINE EVERETT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP.;
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CV-141
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Katherine Everett filed this suit pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act to challenge the defendants’
(FedEx’s) determination that she was not totally disabled and
thus no longer eligible for disability benefits. The district
court granted FedEx’s motion for summary judgment, and Everett
appeals this judgment. This court reviews a district court’s
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-30447
-2-
grant of summary judgment de novo. Threadgill v. Prudential Sec.
Group, Inc., 145 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1998).
Everett first argues that the district court erred in
determining that the “sliding scale” standard of review did not
apply to her claim. Everett has not shown that FedEx had a
conflict of interest such that the sliding scale standard should
apply. See Vega v. Nat. Life Ins. Servs., Inc., 188 F.3d 287,
296 (5th Cir. 1999) (en banc). She thus has not shown that the
district court erred in declining to apply this standard.
Everett next argues that the district court erred in
rejecting her argument that FedEx legally erred when it applied
the wrong definition of “significant objective findings” to
analyze her claim of disability. Everett has not established
that there are inconsistencies between the definitions of that
term found in the benefits plan and the summary plan description
at issue in this case. See Wise v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 986
F.2d 929, 939 (5th Cir. 1993). She thus has not shown that the
district court erred in rejecting this argument.
Everett’s final contention is that the district court erred
in determining that FedEx had not abused its discretion in
determining that she was not totally disabled and rejecting her
claim for continued benefits. The record contains substantial
evidence to support FedEx’s rejection of her claim. See
Meditrust Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Sterling Chems. Inc., 168 F.3d
No. 03-30447
-3-
211, 213-15 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, Everett has not shown
that the district court erred in rejecting this claim.
Everett has not shown that the district court erred in
granting FedEx’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing her
suit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.