Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01816/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01816-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1816

___________

Butler Manufacturing Company, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

*

Connecticut General Life Insurance *

Company, *

*

Plaintiff, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, a * [UNPUBLISHED]

Division of Health Care Service Corp., *

*

Defendant - Appellee, *

*

Gerber Life Insurance Company, *

*

Defendant. *

___________

Submitted: December 14, 2007

Filed: July 3, 2008

___________

Before BYE, ARNOLD, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 07-1816 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/03/2008 Entry ID: 3448838
1

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

-2-

Butler Manufacturing Company appeals the district court's1

 grant of summary

judgment in favor of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas. We affirm.

Michael Richardson and Julie Ann Richardson were divorced in 1993. Michael

was employed by Butler Manufacturing Company and participated in its self-funded

healthcare plan, and Julie was employed by R & R Marine Fabrication and Drydock

and participated in its healthcare plan. This action arises out of a dispute over which

of the two healthcare plans is responsible for medical expenses incurred on behalf of

the Richardsons' minor son, Kyle, prior to his death in 2003.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard

as the district court. Jaurequi v. Carter Mfg. Co., Inc., 173 F.3d 1076, 1085 (8th Cir.

1999). Summary judgment is proper if there exists no genuine issue as to any material

fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(c). When ruling on a summary judgment motion, a court must view the evidence

"in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Dush v. Appleton Elec. Co.,

124 F.3d 957, 962-63 (8th Cir. 1997). However, a "nonmovant must present more

than a scintilla of evidence and must advance specific facts to create a genuine issue

of material fact for trial." F.D.I.C. v. Bell, 106 F.3d 258, 263 (8th Cir. 1997).

The district court concluded the healthcare plan of the custodial parent had

primary responsibility for payment of healthcare related costs. The court further

concluded the parties' divorce decree designated Michael as Kyle's custodial parent.

Therefore, Butler's healthcare plan bore financial responsibility for Kyle's medical

expenses. We agree. Because an extended discussion would add nothing to the wellreasoned order of the district court, we affirm under 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1816 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/03/2008 Entry ID: 3448838