[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-15158

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:11-cv-03325-VEH

RANDALL HUFFSTUTLER, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

________________________

(August 28, 2013)

Before CARNES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge, and EVANS,* District

Judge.

PER CURIAM: 

 * Honorable Orinda D. Evans, United States District Judge for the Northern District of 

Georgia, sitting by designation.

Case: 12-15158 Date Filed: 08/28/2013 Page: 1 of 7 
2

Randall Huffstutler, who receives a pension that is covered by ERISA from 

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, sued Goodyear, seeking to overturn the plan 

administrator’s decision denying his request to change his retirement benefits. 

Huffstutler contends that a clerical error by a Goodyear employee caused him to 

receive a monthly pension check that is less than he should be receiving.

I.

Huffstutler retired from Goodyear on January 1, 1997 and began receiving a 

disability pension under the company’s 1950 Pension Plan. Around the time that 

he retired, Huffstutler and his then-wife met with Bettie Pierce,1 an employee in

Goodyear’s human resources department, so he could select how he wanted to 

receive his pension. He reviewed the different options with Pierce, told her which 

option he wanted, and she checked the corresponding box on the election form.

On Huffstutler’s form, the box for “Option A” — which provides a reduced 

monthly payment after the first five years but continues benefits to his wife if he 

predeceases her — is checked. In addition, the name and birthday of his then-wife 

are written directly underneath the description of “Option A” and the signatures of 

both Huffstutler and her appear on the second page of the form, as does Pierce’s 

signature as a witness.

 1 At the time, Bettie Pierce used the name Bettie Williams.

Case: 12-15158 Date Filed: 08/28/2013 Page: 2 of 7 
3

Sometime during the first five years of his retirement (while he was still 

receiving the full monthly payment) Huffstutler and his wife divorced. When he 

received notice that his monthly payment was going to be reduced pursuant to his 

election of “Option A,” Huffstutler wrote a letter to Goodyear asserting that he had 

elected “No Option” — which provides full monthly payments to him for life and 

no benefits to a surviving spouse — and that “Option A” was checked only 

because of a clerical error on the part of a Goodyear employee. With that letter, he

included a letter from his ex-wife that said the same thing. Gary Dannemiller, 

Goodyear’s manager of pension and insurance operations, responded to Huffstutler 

in a letter informing him that his “claim for a change to [his] pension option 

election . . . has not been approved” and notifying him that he could submit his 

claim for further consideration to the Benefits Review Committee. Huffstutler did 

that, but his claim was denied. He sent a letter stating that he wanted to appeal to 

the ERISA Appeals Committee, but nothing happened.

Nearly nine years later, Huffstutler, through his attorney, wrote a letter to 

Goodyear asking “that the decision of ‘no option’ be implemented immediately 

and no more money be withheld from his retirement and he be fully repaid all 

money that has been withheld after 60 months with interest.” Attached to the letter 

were two affidavits: one from Huffstutler and one from his ex-wife. Both said that 

Huffstutler chose “No Option,” not “Option A.” Dannemiller forwarded the 

Case: 12-15158 Date Filed: 08/28/2013 Page: 3 of 7 
4

request to Goodyear’s ERISA Appeals Committee, which met regarding it on June 

20, 2011.

The ERISA Appeals Committee considered the letters and affidavits that 

Huffstutler had submitted, and he and his attorney participated in the meeting by 

phone. The Committee also considered Dannemiller’s description of the process 

that the company used when a retiree selected his pension benefits, and it contacted 

Pierce to ask her about Huffstutler’s form. Soon thereafter, the Committee denied 

Huffstutler’s appeal, finding that he had “validly elected with the signed consent of 

. . . his wife at the time of retirement . . . Option A” and that his claim he had 

selected “No Option” was not credible.

II.

Huffstutler sued Goodyear in state court seeking to overturn the ERISA 

Appeals Committee’s decision. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) (“A civil action 

may be brought by a participant or beneficiary to recover benefits due to him under 

the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify 

his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan.”). Goodyear removed the 

case to federal court. The district court decided that the Committee’s decision was 

correct and entered judgment to that effect. This is Huffstutler’s appeal of the 

district court’s judgment.

Case: 12-15158 Date Filed: 08/28/2013 Page: 4 of 7 
5

“We review de novo a district court’s ruling affirming or reversing a plan 

administrator’s ERISA benefits decision, applying the same legal standards that 

governed the district court’s decision.” Blankenship v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 644 

F.3d 1350, 1354 (11th Cir. 2011). The first step in reviewing the administrator’s 

decision is always the same: review the plan administrator’s decision de novo to 

determine whether it was right or wrong, i.e., whether we agree or disagree with 

the decision. Id. at 1355. If we conclude that the decision was right, we affirm it 

and our inquiry ends. Id. We move on to the next steps of our analysis only if we 

conclude that the decision was wrong. Id. 

III.

Applying the de novo standard of review, we conclude that the Committee 

correctly denied Huffstutler’s appeal because his assertion that he chose “No 

Option” is not credible. Huffstutler’s allegation that a Goodyear employee made a 

clerical error by checking the wrong box is implausible. Huffstutler’s election 

form clearly indicates an intent to select “Option A,” and there is little or no 

chance of confusion between “Option A” and “No Option.” The checkbox for 

“Option A” is located near the top of the first page, while the checkbox for “No 

Option” is near the bottom of the second. “Option A” asks for the spouse’s name 

and birthdate, and that information is provided on Huffstutler’s form. “No Option” 

Case: 12-15158 Date Filed: 08/28/2013 Page: 5 of 7 
6

asks for the name of a beneficiary and that beneficiary’s relationship to the 

employee, and neither of those lines is completed on his form.

Although the evidence shows that Pierce actually filled out the form, it also 

shows that she filled it out the way she did with the knowledge and consent of 

Huffstutler and his then-wife. First, there is no contention that the name or

birthdate of Huffstutler’s ex-wife are incorrect, which suggests that either he or his 

ex-wife provided that information to Pierce when she was filling out the election 

form. Second, although Huffstutler claimed before the Appeals Committee that the 

signatures on the election form did not belong to him or his ex-wife, that allegation 

is contradicted by his ex-wife’s affidavit, in which she admits that she had signed 

the form. The fact that the form was signed by a witness also tends to corroborate 

the authenticity of the signatures of Huffstutler and his ex-wife.

For those reasons, we agree with the Appeals Committee’s finding that 

Huffstutler’s factual allegations are not credible. Because the Committee’s 

decision was de novo right, the district court’s judgment upholding it is affirmed.2

 

See Blankenship, 644 F.3d at 1355. 

 2 Huffstutler contends for the first time on appeal that he is entitled to equitable 

reformation of the pension plan based on Goodyear’s unilateral mistake of selecting the wrong 

option on the election form. Because he did not seek that relief or advance that theory in the 

district court, we will not consider it. See Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 

1331 (11th Cir. 2004) (“[A]n issue not raised in the district court and raised for the first time in 

an appeal will not be considered by this court.”). 

Case: 12-15158 Date Filed: 08/28/2013 Page: 6 of 7 
7

AFFIRMED.

 

Also, because we conclude that the Appeals Committee’s decision was de novo right, we 

do not address Huffstutler’s arguments that the Committee did not have discretion in reviewing 

claims, that its decision was otherwise arbitrary and capricious, and that its decision was 

improperly influenced by a conflict of interest. See Blankenship, 644 F.3d at 1355 (stating that 

if the plan administrator’s decision is de novo right, we “end the inquiry” and affirm).

Case: 12-15158 Date Filed: 08/28/2013 Page: 7 of 7