Hidy v. TIAA Grp Long Term

Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-12-2003
Hidy v. TIAA Grp Long Term
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket 02-2140
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"Hidy v. TIAA Grp Long Term" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 807.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/807
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No: 02-2140
CAROLYN B. HIDY,
Appellant
v.
TIAA GROUP LONG TERM DISABILITY BENEFITS INSURANCE POLICY,
an employee benefit plan; TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY
ASSOCIATION, Claims Administrator of LTD Plan; BUCKMAN AND
VAN BUREN, Plan Administrator of LTD Plan
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
(C.A. No. 01-450)
District Court: Hon. Sue L. Robinson
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
February 11, 2003
Before: ALITO and McKEE, Circuit Judges,
and SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge*
(Filed February 12, 2003)
OPINION
McKEE, Circuit Judge.
Carolyn Hidy appeals from the district court=s decision that her action under the
*
Honorable William W. Schwarzer, Senior District Judge, Northern District of
California sitting by designation.
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (AERISA@), ' 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. '
1132(a)(1)(B), in which she alleged that she was improperly denied long term disability
benefits, was time-barred in light of our holding in Syed v. Hercules Inc., 214 F.3d 155 (3d
Cir. 2000).
Inasmuch as we write only for the parties, it is not necessary to recite the factual or
procedural background of this case. Moreover, in its Memorandum Opinion, the district
court carefully and completely explained its reasons for finding that Hidy=s claim is time-
barred. Hidy v. TIAA Group Long Term Disability Benefits Ins. Policy, 2002 WL 450984
(D.Del. March 19, 2002). We can add nothing to the district court=s thoughtful analysis,
and we will not attempt to gild the lily by engaging in a redundant discussion simply to
reach the same result.
Accordingly, we will affirm the district court substantially for the reasons set forth
in the district court=s opinion without further elaboration.
/s/ Theodore A. McKee
Circuit Judge
2