IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-30788

Summary Calendar

BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA 

PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP, P.L.C., 

 Requesting Parties - Appellants

v.

CLAIMANT ID 100284842, 

 Objecting Party - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:18-CV-5093

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This case concerns a claim for business economic losses arising out of the 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill.1 The Louisiana Primary Care Association, Inc., 

Claimant ID 100284842 (“LPCA”), brought an economic loss claim in April 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

1 This court has previously detailed the facts of the oil spill and the intricacies of the 

resulting settlement agreement. See In re Deepwater Horizon, 739 F.3d 790 (5th Cir. 2014); 

In re Deepwater Horizon, 732 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2013).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 29, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-30788 Document: 00514894422 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2019
No. 18-30788

2

2014 under the court supervised settlement program established in the 

aftermath of the spill. The settlement program awarded LPCA $224,432.68 in 

compensation. BP appealed, and the settlement program appeal panel 

modified the award to $208,316.33. BP alleges that the claims administrator 

erred in two respects: (1) by failing to properly match grant revenue with 

related expenses, and (2) failing to review expenses classified as “fixed” or 

“variable.” BP sought discretionary review of the award in federal district 

court, which was denied. This appeal followed.

The district court has a discretionary right to review appeal panel 

decisions, “which is not a right for the parties to be granted such review.” 

Holmes Motors, Inc. v. BP Exp. & Prod., Inc., 829 F.3d 313, 316 (5th Cir. 2017) 

(quoting In re Deepwater Horizon, 785 F.3d at 999). We review the district 

court’s denial of discretionary review for abuse of discretion. Id. at 315. We ask 

“whether the decision not reviewed by the district court actually contradicted 

or misapplied the Settlement Agreement, or had the clear potential to 

contradict or misapply the Settlement Agreement.” Id. (quoting In re 

Deepwater Horizon, 641 F. App’x 405, 409-10 (5th Cir. 2016)). But it is “wrong 

to suggest that the district court must grant review of all claims that raise a 

question about the proper interpretation of the Settlement Agreement.” Id. at 

316. “It is not an abuse of discretion to deny a request for review that ‘involve[s] 

no pressing question of how the Settlement Agreement should be interpreted 

or implemented, but simply raise[s] the correctness of a discretionary 

administrative decision in the facts of a single claimant’s case.’” Claimant ID 

100212278 v. BP Exp. & Prod., Inc., 848 F.3d 407, 410 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting 

In re Deepwater Horizon, 641 F. App’x at 410).

First, as to BP’s argument that the claims administrator failed to match 

grant revenue with corresponding expenses, BP fails to show that the district 

court abused its discretion by denying review. BP claims that LPCA improperly 

 Case: 18-30788 Document: 00514894422 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/29/2019
No. 18-30788

3

recorded $75,000 in special grant revenue in December 2009 and that the 

claims administrator neglected to correct the error. We disagree. The claims 

administrator noted and inquired about the December 2009 revenue spike.

Having done so, the administrator determined, and the appeal panel affirmed,

that the revenue and expenses were properly designated. BP does not allege 

an appeal panel split on this matching issue,2 nor does BP show that the claims 

administrator misapplied the settlement agreement. Consequently, this 

request for review does not raise a “pressing question of how the Settlement 

Agreement should be interpreted or implemented, but simply raise[s] the 

correctness of a discretionary administrative decision in the facts of a single 

claimant’s case.’” Id. We therefore find no abuse of discretion in the district 

court’s denying discretionary review on the revenue matching issue.

Second, BP asserts that the claims administrator failed to determine 

whether LPCA’s “variable” program expenses and “fixed” miscellaneous 

expenses contained properly classified line items, and that the district court 

abused its discretion in denying review. We again disagree. To calculate an 

award for business economic losses under the settlement agreement, business 

expenses must be classified as either “fixed” or “variable.” BP Expl. & Prod., 

Inc. v. Claimant ID 100094497, 910 F.3d 797, 799 (5th Cir. 2018) (Texas Gulf 

Seafood). This classification may significantly affect the amount of money to 

which a claimant is entitled. Id. As this court recently decided in Texas Gulf 

Seafood, “the Settlement Agreement requires claims administrators to use 

 

2 We note that this Court is calendared to hear In re Deepwater Horizon, No. 17-30727

(oral argument scheduled for March 2019). In that appeal, BP disputes when claims 

administrators can reallocate revenue for the purpose of “matching,” i.e., whether they may 

only reallocate revenue when necessary to correct errors, or whether they may also reallocate 

revenue to avoid mismatches. However, BP does not argue that the decision in that appeal 

could impact this one. Furthermore, unlike that case, this appeal concerns only the 

settlement administrator’s discretionary determination that revenue had been properly 

matched.

 Case: 18-30788 Document: 00514894422 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/29/2019
No. 18-30788

4

their independent judgment and classify expenses as ‘fixed’ or ‘variable’ 

according to their substantive nature, rather than rational basis review of the 

claimants’ own descriptions.” Id. at 802.

Here, BP does not argue that the category of program expenses is not 

“variable,” but instead argues that the claims administrator incorrectly 

deferred to LPCA’s categorization of certain line-item expenses as “variable” 

program expenses. Similarly, BP does not contest that miscellaneous expenses 

are not “fixed,” but instead argues that the items listed therein are not properly 

considered “fixed.” Here, both the claims administrator and the appeal panel 

conducted an independent review of these line items. Specifically, the appeal 

panel noted: “The issues were examined under Policy 495 and the AVM 

Methodology and the Settlement Agreement exhibits. No error in classification 

has been shown.” While BP insists that claims administrators must “show why 

[their] conclusion[s are] correct,” Texas Gulf Seafood does not require this—it 

only requires claims administrators and appeal panels to “use their 

independent judgment” in classifying expenses. Id. at 802. BP has not shown 

that the district court abused its discretion in denying review.

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 18-30788 Document: 00514894422 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/29/2019