Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03015/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03015-0/pdf.json

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

---

FIL .t!l D 

UNITED STATES COURT OP APPEALS United States Court of Af)~Qt., 'l'rmth Cl!-eul ~ 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JUL Of 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKEE 

Clerk 

MARION O'BRIEN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v . 

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY; ENRON CORP. LONG-TERM 

DISABILITY PLAN; ENRON CORP. 

RETIREMENT PLAN; ENRON CORP. 

MEDICAL PLAN ; ENRON CORP. DENTAL 

PLAN; ENRON CORP . LIFE INSURANCE 

PLAN, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No . 92-3015 

(D . C. No . 91-1091-K) 

(D . Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA and BRORBY, Cir c u i t Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record , this panel 

has determined unanimously that or a l argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal . See Fed. R. App . P . 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34 . 1 . 9 . 

submitted without oral argument . 

The cause is therefore ordered 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3 . 

Appellate Case: 92-3015 Document: 010110259010 Date Filed: 07/01/1992 Page: 1
Ms. O'Brien appeals the district court's determination that 

she was not totally disabled. We affirm. 

Ms. O'Brien was employed by Enron Corp. as a maintenance 

person. Prior to this employment, Ms. O'Brien worked for eleven 

years as a beautician. As a result of surgery, Ms. O'Brien could 

no longer perform these two jobs; however, she was not totally 

disabled for certain other occupations such as clerical 

employment. 

Ms. O'Brien was covered by an occupational disability policy 

written by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Metropolitan). 

This policy was a group policy issued to Enron. Ms . O'Brien 

commenced this action to recover long-term disability benefits 

under the policy. 

As no disputed facts existed, all parties moved for summary 

judgment. The trial court concluded Ms. O'Brien was not disabled 

as that term is used in the Enron plan for defining long-term 

disability and granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. 

Ms. O'Brien appeals asserting the trial court's decision was 

erroneous as a matter of law. We review the district court's 

legal determinations under a de nova standard. Northern Natural 

Gas Co . v. Grounds, 931 F.2d 678, 681 (10th Cir. 1991) . 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-3015 Document: 010110259010 Date Filed: 07/01/1992 Page: 2
The language contained in the employee welfare benefit plan 

is plain and unambiguous . In order to receive the long-term 

disability benefits in question Ms . O'Brien had to demonstrate she 

was "totally disabled so as to be wholly prevented from engaging 

in any and every gainful occupation for which [s]he is reasonably 

fitted by education, training, or experience . " 

The evidence is uncontradicted that Ms. O'Brien could not 

perform those occupations that require lifting over thirty pounds, 

assuming cramped or unusual positions, bending, stooping, 

squatting, and operating heavy equipment . The evidence is also 

uncontradicted that Ms . O'Brien could perform a significant number 

of jobs . 

The undisputed e v idence clearly justifies the district 

court's conclusion: " [T]he evidence is uncontradicted that 

O'Brien is not totally disabled from gainful employment for which 

she is reasonably qualified by her education, experience, or 

training. " 

Ms. O'Brien asserts the plan requires only that she be unable 

to perform her particular occupation in order to be considered 

totally disabled . Ms. O' Brien asks us to liberally construe the 

plan language in her favor. 

The flaw in Ms. O'Brien's argument is that the plan language 

be fore us is not ambiguous nor i s it unclear. The plan language 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-3015 Document: 010110259010 Date Filed: 07/01/1992 Page: 3
states Ms. O'Brien is not entitled to long-term disability 

benefits unless she is prevented from an employment for which she 

is fitted by education, training or experience. The undisputed 

evidence clearly establishes Ms. O'Brien 

performing other jobs for which she is 

is fully capable of 

reasonably fitted by 

education, training or experience. The tacit premise underlying 

Ms. O'Brien's arguments is factual, i.e., she does not have the 

education, training or experience that would qualify her for 

another job. The factual record on appeal simply does not support 

this premise. 

The parties spend considerable time in their briefs arguing 

whether the district court's review of the denial of long-term 

disability is de novo or arbitrary and capricious. We need not 

resolve this issue as we agree with the trial court that "it is 

unnecessary to resolve the issue of the correct standard of 

review, since even under the narrower trial de novo, the 

uncontroverted facts do not establish total disability. " 

The definition of the term "disability" is clear, plain and 

unambiguous. The application of this definition to the facts 

before us results in no ambiguity. Had Ms. O'Brien raised a 

factual issue by establishing she was not suited by education, 

training or experience for one of the occupations which 

defendants' evidence showed Ms. O'Brien to be "reasonably fitted, " 

this case might have been closer. This court is not free to find 

an ambiguity when none exists, nor are we free to re-draft the 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-3015 Document: 010110259010 Date Filed: 07/01/1992 Page: 4
plan language so it would read "if applicant cannot perform her 

present or past occupations, applicant is entitled to disability." 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 92-3015 Document: 010110259010 Date Filed: 07/01/1992 Page: 5