Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02713/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02713-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aetna Insurance Company
Appellee
Heublein, Inc.
Appellee
Insured Welfare Benefit Plan
Appellee
Linton James
Appellant
Kentucky Fried Chicken, Inc.
Appellee

Document Text:

J 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Court of Appeals 'T'P.~th r ;~,..,:r 

AUG 101989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

LINTON JAMES, Clerk 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

vs. 

KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN, INC., 

AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, 

HEUBLEIN, INC. and INSURED 

WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN (Long Term 

Disability Plan #505), 

Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 88-2713 

(D.C. No. 85-C-404-E) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

Plaintiff-appellant, Linton James, sought review in the 

district court pursuant to ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132, of a decision 

to deny him long term disability benefits under an employee 

welfare benefit plan participated in by defendant-appellee 

Kentucky Fried Chicken, administered by defendant-appellee 

* 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. 

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

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

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 88-2713 Document: 01019974686 Date Filed: 08/10/1989 Page: 1 
Heublein and insured by defendant-appellee Aetna Insurance. 

Following a bench trial, the district court entered findings of 

fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 

52(a), and directed judgment for the defendants. Invoking 28 

u.s.c. § 1291, James seeks further review in this court. Our 

standard of review is the same as the district court's and is well 

established: "The decisions of the plan representatives to deny 

benefits will be upheld unless such decisions are '(1) arbitrary 

and capricious, (2) not supported by substantial evidence, or (3) 

erroneous on a question of law."' Sage v. Automation, Inc. 

Pension Plan and Trust, 845 F.2d 885, 895 (10th Cir. 1988) 

(quoting Peckham v. Board of Trustees, 653 F.2d 424, 426 (10th 

Cir. 1981)). Accord Torix v. Ball Corp., 862 F.2d 1428, 1429 

(10th Cir. 1988). Applying this standard, we affirm the district 

court for two reasons. First, because James did not exhaust his 

available short term disability benefits and waited until after 

ending his employment to seek long term disability benefits, he 

was not covered under the terms of the plan. Second, substantial 

evidence supports defendants-appellants determination that James 

was not permanently disabled. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-2713 Document: 01019974686 Date Filed: 08/10/1989 Page: 2