Case ID: f-appx_379/html/0837-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Paul HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Foreign Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-15574
    Non-Argument Panel.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    May 13, 2010.
    William S. Coffman, Coffman Law, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Kristina B. Pett, Pett, Furman & Jacobson, PL, Boca Raton, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.
    BEFORE TJOFLAT, WILSON and HILL, Circuit Judges.
   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 x*epresentative. Hai-x-is 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 support for his claim that he could not perform even a sedentaxy job, the district court granted UNUM’s motion for summary judgment.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record in this case, the bx-iefs, and the ax*guments of counsel. Finding no error, the judgment of the distinct court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.