Paul Harris v. UNUM Life Insurance Co.

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 13, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 09-15574
Non-Argument Panel
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 08-02328-CV-T-26-TGW
PAUL HARRIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
a Foreign Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(May 13, 2010)
BEFORE TJOFLAT, WILSON and HILL, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal brought by Paul Harris (Harris), a licensed physical
therapist assistant (PTA), under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., specifically § 1132(a)(1)(b). After two hip
replacement surgeries, and three previous diagnoses for AIDS, tuberculosis, and
necrosis of the hip, Harris filed a claim for long-term disability benefits under his
insurance policy, funded and administered by Unum Life Insurance Company of
America (UNUM).
UNUM paid Harris full disability benefits for two years, based upon the
policy’s “regular occupation” provision. After twenty-four months, however, the
UNUM policy’s definition of “disability” reverted to the inability to perform the
duties of “any gainful occupation.”
Setting forth thirteen pages of detailed facts in its order, the district court
agreed with UNUM that clearly Harris had the ability and transferable skills to
perform certain sedentary gainful occupations as defined by the policy, such as a
museum scheduler, a generic dispatcher, and a customer-center representative.
Harris admitted that he could do his laundry, prepare meals, vacuum and clean his
home, cook and grocery shop. Harris also serves as a guardian ad litem, uses a
computer and takes afternoon swims. Finding that Harris had failed to provide
2

-- 2 of 3 --

support for his claim that he could not perform even a sedentary job, the district
court granted UNUM’s motion for summary judgment.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record in this case, the briefs, and the
arguments of counsel. Finding no error, the judgment of the district court is
affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --