Opinion
Civil Action No. 3: 03-CV-1278-B.
March 2, 2005
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 14), filed June 14, 2004. After review of the pleadings and evidence, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Dealbro Grant ("Plaintiff") was employed by Defendant Methodist Hospitals of Dallas, Inc. ("Defendant") for approximately eight years. (Pl.'s Compl. ¶ IV) In May 2001, Plaintiff claims to have been injured in the scope of her employment. ( Id.) Defendant is a nonsubscriber to the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, but maintains an Occupational Injury Benefit Plan (the "Plan"). (Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. ¶ IV.1) Defendant paid for certain medical procedures following Plaintiff's injury, but terminated Plaintiff's benefits in December 2001 based on the Plan Representative's determination that Plaintiff's injury was not caused by her employment. ( Id. at ¶¶ IV.5 IV.7)
Plaintiff brought suit in Texas state court on May 12, 2003, which Defendant removed to this Court. Plaintiff alleged Defendant's denial of benefits was wrongful under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. (1999 Supp. 2004). (Pl.'s Compl. ¶ VII) In the alternative, Plaintiff claims Defendant was negligent in failing to instruct Plaintiff on how to avoid the injury she sustained. (Pl.'s Compl. ¶ X) Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, seeking dismissal of all of Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff filed no response.
This case was originally before the Honorable Sam A. Lindsay. It was transferred to the docket of the Honorable Jane J. Boyle on July 19, 2004, pursuant to Special Order No. 03-239.
II. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff's lack of response to Defendant's Motion means that Plaintiff has not designated specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial and is, therefore, relegated to her unsworn pleadings, which are not summary judgment evidence. Bookman v. Shubzda, 945 F. Supp. 999, 1002 (N.D. Tex. 1996) (citing Solo Serve Corp. v. Westowne Assoc., 929 F.2d 160, 165 (5th Cir. 1991)). Thus, while Plaintiff's failure to respond does not permit the Court to enter a "default" summary judgment, the Court is allowed to accept the evidence presented by Defendant as undisputed. Eversley v. Mbank Dallas, 843 F.2d 172, 174 (5th Cir. 1988); see also Ragas v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., 136 F.3d 455, 458 (5th Cir. 1998) (holding a party opposing summary judgment is required to identify specific evidence in the record and articulate the precise manner in which that evidence supports her claim). As such, this Court accepts Defendant's evidentiary assertions as undisputed. See Ragas, 136 F.3d at 458 (noting the court does not have the duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment); Skotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc., 953 F.2d 909, 915-16 n. 17 (5th Cir. 1992) (same). The Court now addresses the merits of Defendant's Motion.
• Plaintiff's ERISA Claim — Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's decision to deny her benefits under the Plan was wrongful under ERISA because her injury was work-related. (Pl.'s Compl. ¶ VII) Defendant claims that Plaintiff has no evidence that Defendant abused its discretion in terminating her benefits under the Plan. Because the Plan gives discretion to the Plan Representative to administer the Plan (Def.'s App. p. 11), the Court must review the Plan Representative's factual determinations for an abuse of discretion. Vercher v. Alexander Alexander, Inc., 379 F.3d 222, 226 (5th Cir. 2002). Defendant has identified and produced evidence that supports the Plan Representative's determination that Plaintiff's injury did not occur in the course of her employment. (Def.'s App. pp. 4-7, 24-31) Plaintiff has produced no evidence in response, and thus, has failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Plan Representative abused her discretion. Without such evidence, Plaintiff cannot sustain her ERISA claim; therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion on Plaintiff's ERISA claims.
• Plaintiff's Negligence Claim — Plaintiff asserts that Defendant was negligent in failing to instruct Plaintiff on how to avoid the injury she allegedly sustained. (Pl.'s Compl. ¶ X) Defendant moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff's lack of evidence of (1) breach of duty and (2) proximate cause. Because Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant's Motion, there is no evidence before the Court on breach of duty and causation, essential elements of a negligence claim. D. Houston, Inc. v. Love, 92 S.W.3d 450, 454 (Tex. 2002) (listing elements of negligence cause of action). As such, Plaintiff has failed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding Plaintiff's negligence cause of action. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion on Plaintiff's negligence claim.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's ERISA and negligence claims.SO ORDERED.