Summary
affirming the entry of summary judgment in favor of the insurance company and noting that the claimant admitted that he could do laundry, prepare meals, and take afternoon swims
Summary of this case from Patricia Street v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.Opinion
No. 09-15574 Non-Argument Panel.
May 13, 2010.
William S. Coffman, Coffman Law, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Kristina B. Pett, Pett, Furman Jacobson, PL, Boca Raton, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. D.C. Docket No. 08-02328-CV-T-26-TGW.
BEFORE TJOFLAT, WILSON and HILL, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal brought by Paul Harris (Harris), a licensed physical therapist assistant (PTA), under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., specifically § 1132(a)(1)(b). After two hip replacement surgeries, and three previous diagnoses for AIDS, tuberculosis, and necrosis of the hip, Harris filed a claim for long-term disability benefits under his insurance policy, funded and administered by Unum Life Insurance Company of America (UNUM).
UNUM paid Harris full disability benefits for two years, based upon the policy's "regular occupation" provision. After. twenty-four months, however, the UNUM policy's definition of "disability" reverted to the inability to perform the duties of "any gainful occupation."
Setting forth thirteen pages of detailed facts in its order, the district court agreed with UNUM that clearly Harris had the ability and transferable skills to perform certain sedentary gainful occupations as defined by the policy, such as a museum scheduler, a generic dispatcher, and a customer-center representative. Harris admitted that he could do his laundry, pre-pare meals, vacuum and clean his home, cook and grocery shop. Harris also serves as a guardian ad litem, uses a computer and takes afternoon swims. Finding that Harris had failed to provide support for his claim that he could not perform even a sedentary job, the district court granted UNUM's motion for summary judgment.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record in this case, the briefs, and the arguments of counsel. Finding no error, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.