Kelley v. Prudential Ins Co, 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 99-30827
Summary Calendar
_____________________
MICHAEL W. KELLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA;
CAMCO INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(98-CV-1840)
_________________________________________________________________
May 2, 2000
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Concerning summary judgment being awarded Appellees in Michael
W. Kelley’s action arising out of his being denied long-term
disability benefits under Camco’s employee benefit plan, Kelley
contends that the district court erred in finding no conflict
between the offset provisions in his employer’s (Camco’s) Summary
Plan Description (SPD) and Prudential’s policy and expanding the
offset provisions contained in the SPD by including general damages
as other income. (Kelley had settled a third-party, personal
injury action. His retirement from Camco was linked to that.)

-- 1 of 2 --

2
A summary judgment is reviewed de novo. E.g., Melton v.
Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of America, 114 F.3d 557, 559 (5th
Cir. 1997). Denial of ERISA benefits by a plan administrator
vested with the authority to make a final and conclusive
determination of claims is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
E.g., Meditrust Financial Servs. Corp. v. Sterling Chemicals, Inc.,
168 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir. 1999).
Based on our review of the record and briefs, there was no
direct conflict between the SPD and Prudential’s policy. See
Hansen v. Continental Ins. Co., 940 F.2d 971, 982 (5th Cir. 1991);
Wise v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 986 F.2d 929, 938-39 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 510 U.S. 870 (1993). Accordingly, Prudential did not
abuse its discretion in denying benefits to Kelley. Therefore,
essentially for the reasons stated by the district court. Kelley
v. Prudential Ins. Co., et al., No. 6:98-1840 (W.D. La. 1999)
(unpublished), the judgment is
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --