United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit November 14, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-20374
Summary Calendar
MILDRED J. MILLS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
BMC SOFTWARE INC; BMC SOFTWARE INC. DISABILITY PLAN; ET AL
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas, Houston
4:04-CV-2221
_____________________________________________
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mildred J. Mills challenges the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to defendants Hartford Life Insurance
Company (“Hartford Life”), Hartford Life and Accident Insurance
Company (“Hartford) (collectively “Hartford Defendants”), BMC
Software, Inc., and BMC Software, Inc. Disability Plan
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
(collectively “BMC”) and dismissing plaintiff’s ERISA claim for
termination of benefits under her employer’s disability plan. For
the following reasons, we AFFIRM the decision of the district
court.
I.
Mills was employed by defendant BMC as a software vendor.
She began her employment in 1991 and by March 2000 was eligible to
participate in her employer’s ERISA long term disability plan.
The plan was administered and insured by Hartford.
In September of 2001, Mills submitted a claim for long term
disability benefits. Mills claimed that she suffered from a
variety of medical conditions including heightened and extreme
anxiety, diarrhea, vomiting, sleeplessness, and depression.
Mills’s treating physician submitted a report in support of her
claim stating that Mills had a primary diagnosis of Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) with a secondary diagnosis of reflux
disease, fatigue, and cervical strain.
Following psychiatric examination and after Hartford had
interviewed Mills, Hartford notified Mills that she had been
approved for long term disability benefits for 24 months under the
mental illness provision of BMC’s policy commencing October 6,
2001. During the 24 month coverage period, Hartford undertook a
review of Mills’s claim that she was physically disabled and thus
entitled to on-going benefits beyond the 24 month coverage period
for mental disability. After this review, Hartford informed Mills
2
of its conclusion that the medical evidence only supported a
finding of disability due to anxiety and depression and that Mills
retained sedentary or light work capacity, that is, the ability to
perform the duties of her occupation. As a result, Hartford
explained, Mills was not physically disabled and her benefits
would be limited to 24 months under the mental illness provision
of the BMC Policy.
After exhausting her administrative appeals, Mills filed suit
in district court alleging that her disability is not restricted
to mental illness and that she is entitled to ongoing benefits for
physical disability because she lacks the physical ability to
perform the duties of her occupation. Mills contends that
Hartford abused its discretion in denying her claims. Both
parties submitted motions for summary judgment. The district
court referred the motions to a magistrate judge who wrote a
thorough opinion concluding that Hartford had not abused its
discretion in rejecting Mills’s claim.
Our independent review of the record leads us to agree with
the magistrate judge’s conclusion. The medical reports of Drs.
Sniger and Friedman fully support Hartford’s conclusion that
Mills’s problems stem from psychiatric disorders rather than
physical ones and that Mills is not physically disabled because
she retains the physical ability to perform the duties of her
occupation. Mills’s related claims against the Hartford
Defendants and BMC were also properly dismissed.
3
Thus, for the reasons stated above and also for essentially
the reasons assigned in the magistrate judge’s thorough memorandum
and recommendation of February 17, 2006, the judgment of the
district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
4