F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT March 5, 2008 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1127 2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 06-60104 CV -D MM DOROTHY S. BOSTED, a. k.a. Dorothy

Ire ne Osbourne, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us CELANESE AMERICAS COR PORATION RETIREMENT MEDICAL PLAN, De fendant-appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ar ch 5, 200 8) Before AN DE RSO N and BARKET T, Circuit Judges, and TR AG ER *, D istrict Judg e.

____ ____ ____ ____ *Honora ble David G. T rag er, United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District of Ne w York, sitting by

desig nation.The pa ragraph f ollowing the he ading : “When Coverag e Ends,” doe s not indicate that the 1 four c ircumstance s there listed a re the exclusive circumstanc es which w ould end cove rag e. F or example, it is obvious that the plan does not intend continued c overa g e for a pre viously

cover ed employ ee who lost long-ter m disabilit y

benef its because of a discove ry that the employ ee ha d embezzled from the company , notwithstanding the f act that that c ircumstance does not comforta bly fit within any

of the four

listed circumstanc es that would end c overa g e. More over, as indicate d in the text , the unre asonable infere nce r elied upon by plaintiff is belied by

other languag e in the 2001 plan. 2 PE R CU RIA M: A ft er or al arg um en t, and c ar ef ul c onsi de ratio n, w e co nc lud e that the j udgm ent of the district court is due to b e af firm ed. W e agre e w ith the dis trict
co urt tha t pl ai nti ff

w as not e nti tle d to be ne fi ts unde r the m ed ic al plan a ssum ing the 2005 plan go ve rn ed
. W e not e that pl ai nti ff doe s no t onappe al c ha lle nge the district court’ s interpretation of the 2005 plan. Be cause w e conclude that pl ai nt iff’s cla im s ar e due to be reject edev en if t he 20 01 pl an were ap pl ic ab le , we need not decide which plan shou ld gov ern. U nder the 2001 plan, a form er
em ploy ee w as “ eligible to p articipate in this Plan if y ou are re ceiving lon g-term d i s ab i l i t y p aym en t s th ro u g h th e c o m p an y’ s d i s ab i l i t y p l an .” We re je ct p l ai n t i ff

’s strained argum ent that, once covera ge com m enced under the foregoing langu age, the f orm er e m plo y ee w oul d be e nti tle d to ope n- en de d m ed ic al c ove ra ge f or a ll tim e, notw ith standi ng the f ac t tha t the e m

plo y ee w as no l onge r el igi ble f or lon gte rm dis ab ili ty

be ne fi ts. S uc h an un re as ona ble int er pr et at ionis not

ind ic at ed by
any langua ge in the 200 1 pl an . T o th e co ntr ar y , the pla int if

f’ s in te rp re ta tio n is 1We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discre tion in denying pla intiff’s 2 c la im f or statut or y pe na lti e s. 3 be lie d by the pr ovi sio n qu ote d a

bove , nam el y

that a f orm er e m plo y ee m ay

be eligible to p articipate if she is receiving long -term disabilit y

paym ents. I n other
w or ds, af

orm er e m plo y ee is el igi ble f

or m ed ic al c ove ra ge onl y

if she is (p re se nt te ns e) re cei vi ng lo ng -te rm di sabi li ty paym en ts . Be ca use j udgm en t w as appr opr ia te f or the c om pany und er the langua ge of ei the r plan, the j udgm en t of the dis tr ic t c ourt i s AFFIR MED. 2