Diane Williams; William E. Williams v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc.

*The Honorable Avern Cohn, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by
designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 06a0097n.06
Filed: February 8, 2006
Case No. 04-3611
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
DIANE WILLIAMS; WILLIAM E.
WILLIAMS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC.;
OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC.,
FLEXIBLE REIMBURSEMENT PLAN;
FIRST HEALTH BENEFITS
ADMINISTRATORS CORPORATION,
Defendants-Appellees.
_______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO
BEFORE: NORRIS and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges; COHN*, District Judge.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Diane Williams, individually and in her
capacity as the guardian of the estate and person of her husband, William E. Williams, brought this
action under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., against the defendants, Old Dominion Freight Line,
Inc., Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. Flexible Reimbursement Plan and First Health Benefits
Administrators Corporation, to recover benefits under an employee benefit plan, to redress alleged
breaches of fiduciary by the defendants, and to recover statutory penalties and costs. The district
court granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the administrative record, holding, in a

-- 1 of 2 --

2
lengthy and exhaustive opinion, that the defendants’ decision to deny medical benefits to Williams’s
husband on the basis of a particular coverage exclusion in the plan was not arbitrary and capricious;
that Williams is not entitled to relief under either 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2) or 29 U.S.C. § 1109; that
Williams is not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees; and that there is no basis upon which
Williams could be entitled to statutory damages. Williams appeals each of these conclusions.
After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, the parties’ briefs, and counsels’
arguments, we are convinced that the district court did not err in its conclusions. As the district
court’s opinion carefully and correctly sets out the law governing the issues raised and clearly
articulates the reasons underlying its decision, issuance of a full opinion by this court would serve
no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM
the judgment of the district court.

-- 2 of 2 --