Hernandez v. El Paso Energy Corp, et al

*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not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
October 7, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-50060
Summary Calendar
ISABEL HERNANDEZ, For Herself and on
behalf of Hector Hernandez’ Estate,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
EL PASO ENERGY CORPORATION, (NOW
KNOWN AS EL PASO CORPORATION);
EL PASO NATURAL GAS COMPANY
EMPLOYEE SEVERANCE PROTECTION PLAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas
(USDC No. EP-01-CV-441-DB)
_______________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Appellant Hernandez sued for severance benefits allegedly due her deceased
husband. The relevant facts are not in dispute. We agree with the district court that the
plan administrator made a legally correct interpretation of the plan document in denying
severance benefits where the beneficiary died, before his employment otherwise
terminated as a result of a scheduled reduction in force that followed a change in control.
The language of sections 4.1 and 5.2 of the plan provide that severance benefits are not
available in such circumstances. We agree with the district court’s analysis of the
relevant plan provisions.
The parties on appeal and the district court do not clearly indicate whether they
think de novo or abuse of discretion review is applicable to judicial review of the plan
administrator’s decision. The de novo standard applies “unless the benefit plan gives the
administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to
construe the terms of the plan.” Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101,
115 (1989). The parties point to no language giving the administrator discretionary
authority, and appellees conceded below that the de novo standard is applicable. Even
under the less deferential de novo standard, we should affirm the administrator’s decision
if, as here, there are no material issues of fact in dispute and the administrator’s
interpretation of the plan was legally correct. See Dial v. NFL Player Supplemental
Disability Plan, 174 F.3d 606, 613 (5th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --