Teresa Vegter v. Canada Life Assurance Co.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-13913 FEBRUARY 9, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00100-CV-CAP-1
TERESA VEGTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE CO.,
Defendant-Appellee,
COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(February 9, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This case involves a company’s denial of employee disability benefits.1
Teresa Vegter, proceeding pro se, sued Canada Life Assurance Co. (“Canada
Life”), asserting claims under state law – claims for loss of earnings and mental
anguish – and claims for relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. The district court granted Canada Life
summary judgment, and Vegter appeals. She presents several arguments for
reversal: the district court erred (1) in holding that she did not have a Seventh
Amendment right to have a jury decide her ERISA claims; (2) in concluding that
res judicata barred her state law claims; (3) in denying her claims for long-term
disability (“LTD”), short-term disability (“STD”), and concurrent disability
benefits; and (4) in concluding that her STD claim was barred by the employee
welfare benefit plan’s (“the Plan”) economic loss provision. We consider and
dispose of Vegter’s arguments in order.
(1) Vegter did not have a Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial on her
ERISA claims because the statute provides for equitable, not legal, remedies.
Stewart v. KHD Deutz of Am. Corp., 75 F.3d 1522, 1527 (11th Cir. 1996).
(2) Res judicata bars a party from relitigating a claim that was, or could
1
The disability in this case appears to have been “anxiety state unspecified” or
depression.
2
have been, presented in a previous suit between the parties that resulted in a final
judgment on the merits. In re Piper Aircraft Corp., 244 F.3d 1289, 1296 (11th Cir.
2001). The district court correctly held that Vegter’s state law claims were barred
by res judicata. The same claims were asserted by her, and dismissed by the court
on the merits, in an earlier law suit she brought against Canada Life.
(3) Vegter challenges the court’s summary judgment disposition of her
claims for LTD, STD, and concurrent disability benefits.2 She admits in her brief
that she was not entitled to concurrent disability benefits; hence, we only address
the claims for LTD and STD benefits.
A plan administrator has fiduciary duties under ERISA. Piazza v. Ebsco
Industries, Inc., 273 F.3d 1341, 1350 (11th Cir. 2001). As a fiduciary, the
administrator is required to discharge its duties under a plan
‘solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries . . . for the
exclusive purpose of . . . providing benefits to participants and their
beneficiaries . . . with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the
circumstances then prevailing that a prudent man acting in a like
capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an
enterprise of a like character and with like aims.’
Hamilton v. Allen-Bradley Co., Inc., 244 F.3d 819, 825 (11th Cir. 2001) (quoting
29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)). On the form Vegter filed with Canada Life, she presented
2
In reviewing the court’s decision, we consider the evidence in the record in the light
most favorable to Vegter, the non-movant.
3
only a STD claim, not a LTD claim. The court therefore did not err in granting the
company summary judgment on the latter claim.
The district court rejected Vegter’s claim for STD benefits because “Vegter
did not present any evidence that she was disabled from her position prior to her
termination for poor performance.” Order, Vol. 5, at Tab 85, at 24. Moreover, it
was clear from “the evidence in the record . . . that Vegter’s loss of income was not
attributable to her alleged disability; it was due to her termination.” Id. at 23.3
Vegter has presented no basis for disturbing the district court’s summary
judgment in this case. It is therefore
AFFIRMED.
3
The court added that Vegter’s post-hoc allegations of hyperthyroidism are largely
irrelevant and appear to have been introduced solely to bolster a claim that appeared more and
more likely to fail.” Id. at 27.
4