Stoker v. Columbia Mainland Medical Center/HCA Healthcare Corp. ( 2004 )

PER CURIAM: *

The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons given by Judge Kent in his order of February 12, 2004. A review of the record and appellant’s argument establishes:

1. Defendant’s plan was followed by Mainland in the termination of benefits. Because Ms. Stoker’s injury occurred at her place of employment and under the circumstances on March 15, 2000, the visit to Dr. Nedry was not an emergency.

2. The terms of the separate plan, applying to injuries not covered by the plan the subject of this action, are irrelevant.

3. There is no evidence of conflict of interest, nor public policy infirmity. No second opinion was denied.

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.