[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 06-13545 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 12, 2007
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 02-80884-CV-DMM
BARBARA BLANKENSHIP,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 12, 2007)
Before WILSON, PRYOR, and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The Plaintiff, Barbara Blankenship, appeals following the grant of summary
judgment in favor of the Defendant, Smithkline Beecham Corporation.
Blankenship presents two arguments on this appeal. First, she argues that the
district court abused its discretion in refusing to enforce the pretrial stipulation
relative to reinstatement of benefits and erred in failing to order reinstatement of her
benefits when remanding to the claims administrator. We reject these arguments for
two reasons. First, the pretrial stipulation was ambiguous when applied to a remand
order of this kind. Second, the district court did not act improperly in declining to
"reinstate" benefits payable under the Plan's second-level definition of disability
because neither the district court nor the claims administrator had determined that
Blankenship was entitled to such benefits.
Blankenship's second argument on appeal is that the district court erred in
granting summary judgment to Smithkline. We conclude that summary judgment was
properly granted for the reasons stated in the district court's well-reasoned opinion.
(R.2-98.)
AFFIRMED.
2