Scott v. Poly-Tech, Inc Empl

*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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 00-60018
Summary Calendar
_____________________
WANDA SCOTT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
POLY-TECH, INCORPORATED EMPLOYEE
HEALTH PLAN,
Defendant-Appellee.
_______________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Mississippi
(USDC No. l:98-CV-182-D-D)
_______________________________________________________
September 29, 2000
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Wanda Scott’s appeal first contends that a failure to meet ERISA’s disclosure
requirements served to reform or modify her employer’s health insurance plan as it

-- 1 of 2 --

2
pertains to her. This is not a remedy allowed against the plan, and the plan
administrator is responsible for noncompliance with ERISA procedures. See 29
U.S.C. §§ 1024(b)(1), 1132(c)(1).
In the alternative, Scott argues that her employer’s insurance plan is estopped
from excluding coverage for her pre-existing conditions in contradiction of oral
representations made by her employer. But this circuit refuses to recognize estoppel
claims based on oral statements in cases where ERISA preempts state law. See
Rodrigue v. Western & S. Life Ins. Co., 948 F.2d 969, 971 (5th Cir. 1991). Because
this is such a case, Scott’s estoppel claim also fails.
Although the circumstances of this case present a compelling and unfortunate
story, we must agree with the district court that neither claim can succeed as a
matter of law.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --