United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 20-30502 

Summary Calendar 

LMPC0402457, 

Requesting Party—Appellant, 

versus

BP Exploration & Production, Incorporated; BP 

America Production Company, 

Objecting Parties—Appellees, 

Garretson Resolution Group, Incorporated, as Claims 

Administrator of the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action 

Settlement Agreement, doing business as Epiq Mass Tort, 

Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana 

USDC No. 2:20-CV-503 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

May 4, 2022 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 20-30502 Document: 00516306893 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/04/2022
No. 20-30502 

2 

Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

Proceeding pro se, Raoul Galan, Jr., claim number LMPC0402457, 

appeals the district court’s order denying his challenge to the Deepwater 

Horizon Medical Benefits Settlement Program Claims Administrator’s 

determination that he did not qualify for class membership. The 

interpretation of a settlement agreement is a question of law that we review 

de novo. BP Expl. & Prod., Inc. v. Claimant ID 100191715, 951 F.3d 646, 648 

(5th Cir. 2020). Under general maritime law, which controls the instant case, 

the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement 

“should be read as a whole and [its] words given their plain meaning unless 

the provision is ambiguous.” BP Expl. & Prod., Inc. v. Claimant ID 

100094497, 910 F.3d 797, 801 (5th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). 

Here, Galan does not meet the requirements detailed in the settlement 

agreement’s class membership definition because he did not work as a cleanup worker at any time between April 20, 2010, and April 16, 2012, nor did he 

reside in Zone A or Zone B for at least 60 days within the applicable 

timeframe. Although he maintains that he is a managing member of Cypress 

Lake No.I, L.L.C., which owns property in Zone A, only natural persons are 

contemplated as class members under the settlement agreement, not 

business entities, and property ownership absent residency does not meet the 

settlement agreement’s definition of a class member. Galan’s suggestion 

that he should be included in the settlement class because he suffers from 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

Case: 20-30502 Document: 00516306893 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/04/2022
No. 20-30502 

3 

depression and because “mental depression has no geographic boundaries” 

is at odds with the plain meaning of the class membership definition. To the 

extent his argument can be construed as an assertion that he is eligible to 

receive compensation despite failing to meet the class membership 

definition, such an argument is contrary to the plain meaning of the 

settlement agreement, which provides that only settlement class members 

may qualify for compensation. Accordingly, the district court did not err by 

denying Galan’s challenge and upholding the Claims Administrator’s 

determination. See Claimant ID 100094497, 910 F.3d at 801. 

Finally, Galan has not shown that the Claims Administrator violated 

his right to due process by requiring him to comply with the terms of the 

settlement agreement in order to establish class membership and ultimately 

recover under the settlement agreement. Cf. In re Deepwater Horizon, 934 

F.3d 434, 445-46 (5th Cir. 2019). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Case: 20-30502 Document: 00516306893 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/04/2022