United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1869

___________

John Delcastillo; Lois Diane *

Delcastillo, *

*

Appellees, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Odyssey Resource Management, INC., *

a Texas Corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant, *

*

The Loomis Company, a Pennsylvania *

corporation; Reliance Group Holdings, *

INC., a Delaware corporation, *

*

Defendants, *

*

1st Odyssey Group, a Texas *

corporation, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 22, 2008

Filed: September 11, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
-2-

Odyssey Resource Management, Inc. and 1st Odyssey Group (collectively

Odyssey) appeal the district court’s orders on remand awarding unreimbursed medical

expenses, statutory penalties, and attorney’s fees to John and Lois Delcastillo in their

Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) lawsuit. 

We conclude that the district court exceeded the scope of this court’s mandate

on remand in its award of unreimbursed medical expenses and statutory penalties

under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1)(B). See Pediatric Specialty Care, Inc. v. Ark. Dep’t of

Human Servs., 364 F.3d 925, 931 (8th Cir. 2004) (district court is not free on remand

to reconsider finally-disposed-of question); Borchers v. Comm’r, 943 F.2d 22, 23 (8th

Cir. 1991) (mandate controls all matters within its scope, and on remand court is not

free to revisit issues expressly or impliedly decided). This court clearly limited the

period for which the Delcastillos could recover unreimbursed medical expenses from

February 1, 1999, until June 30, 2000. See Delcastillo v. Odyssey Res. Mgmt, Inc.,

431 F.3d 1124, 1129, 1131 (8th Cir. 2005). Further, this court vacated an award of

statutory penalties on any basis. See id. at 1129-31. We note, however, that the

Delcastillos may be entitled to prejudgment as well as postjudgment interest. See

Christianson v. Poly-Am., Inc. Med. Benefit Plan, 412 F.3d 935, 941 (8th Cir. 2005)

(purposes of prejudgment interest); Mansker v. TMG Life Ins. Co., 54 F.3d 1322,

1331 (8th Cir. 1995) (interest should be calculated under 28 U.S.C. § 1961).

Accordingly, we reverse the award of statutory penalties under section

1132(c)(1)(B), and we vacate the award of unreimbursed medical expenses. We

remand for the district court to determine and award to the Delcalstillos only the

amount of their unreimbursed medical expenses for the period from February 1, 1999,

to June 30, 2000. The district court should also determine whether prejudgment

interest, as well as postjudgment interest, is warranted. Because we have reversed a

portion of the district court’s award, we again vacate the attorney’s fee award and

remand for reconsideration. See Delcastillo, 431 F.3d at 1131-32 (directing district

court to redetermine whether to exercise its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees,
-3-

keeping in mind that reduced award is proper where relief, however significant, is

limited as compared to whole scope of litigation); Martin v. Ark. Blue Cross & Blue

Shield, 299 F.3d 966, 969-72 & n.4 (8th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (declining to adopt

presumption in favor of awarding attorney’s fees to prevailing ERISA plaintiffs;

relevant considerations). 

______________________________