IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-30091
Summary Calendar
CHRISTELLE THOMISEE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
COMDISCO INC.; ET AL.,
Defendants,
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 98-CV-1640
--------------------
September 28, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Christelle Thomisee appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of the Continental Casualty Company in
an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) suit. See
29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. Thomisee argues that summary judgment
was inappropriate because Continental was not granted
discretionary authority to define the terms of the insurance plan
and that a de novo standard of review should have been applied by
the district court.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 00-30091
-2-
Continental was granted discretionary authority to determine
eligibility. See Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S.
101, 115 (1989); Meditrust Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Sterling Chems.,
Inc., 168 F.3d 211, 213, 214 (5th Cir. 1999). The medical
evidence indicated that Thomisee experienced problems arising
from her condition, but, after treatment, Thomisee did not
experience many of the symptoms associated with a lupus-like
disease and all of the pertinent medical tests were normal. In
addition, the evidence showed that Thomisee was not totally
disabled within the meaning of the policy because she was capable
of performing light, sedentary work. Continental based its
decision to deny benefits on the objective medical evidence, and
its decision had a rational connection with the known facts.
Accordingly, the conclusion by Continental that Thomisee was not
totally disabled was supported by substantial evidence, and
Continental did not abuse its discretion in denying benefits.
See Meditrust Fin. Servs. Corp., 168 F.3d at 215.
AFFIRMED.