[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 75 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cv -2 27 50 -MGC

EUGENE MORRI S, a.k .a. Merc ury , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
vers us NATIONAL FOOTBALL LE AGUE RETIREMENT BOARD, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- App el le e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 13 , 20 12 ) Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

Case: 12-10754 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 1 of 4PER CURI AM:

Eug en e “ Mer cu ry ” Mo rri s, p ro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s fr om th e g ran t o f
su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e Nat io na l Fo otba ll Leag ue Ret ire m en t Bo ardin hi s cl ai m forbe ne fit s u nd er t he BertBel l/ Pet e Ro zel le NFL Player Ret ire m en t Pl an , pu rs ua ntto th e Em

pl oyee Ret ire m en t In co m e Sec ur ity Act (ER ISA), 2 9 U.S.C. § 1 13 2( a). Mo rri s co nt en ds th e d is tri ctco urt erredin de te rm in in g tha t a 19 91 Set tl em en t Ag reem en t an d S pe ci fic Rel eas e, whi chset tl edhi s t ort cl ai m s rel at in g t o d is ab il it y

be ne fit s ag ai ns t t he Ret ire m en t Pl an , di d n otaffe cthi s ret ire m en t b en efi ts . Morris ass ert s t he di st ric t co urt s ho ul d n otha ve gra nt ed de fere nc e to th e Ret ire m en t Bo ardin rev ie win g i ts de ci si on , bec au se th e 1 99 1 Set tl em en t i s n ota pa rt o f th e Ret ire m en t Pl an an d t he refo re i s n otgo ve rn edby ERISA, an d t ha t a p ro pe r de no vo rev ie w wou ldrev eal th atth e 1 99 1 S et tl em en t
res to redhi s fu ll ret ire m en t b en efi ts
. ERISA p ro vi de s n o s ta nd ardforrev ie win g d eci si on s o f pl an adm in is tra to rs
orfiduc ia rie s. Fir es to ne Tir e & Rub be r C o. v. Br uc h , 48 9 U.S. 1 01 , 10 9 (1 98 9)
. Bas edon Supr em e Co urt g ui da nc e, ho wev er, we h av e es tabl is he d asi x- st ep fram ewo rk

to gu id e co urts in rev ie win g an ERI SA pl an adm in is tra to r’s be ne fit s de ci si on s, as fol lo ws: (1 ) App ly the de no vo st an da rdto de te rm in e whe th er t he cla im
2 Case: 12-10754 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 2 of 4ad m in is tra to r's be ne fit s- de ni al de ci si on is “ wro ng ” (i .e., th e co urt

di sa gr ees wit h t he ad m in is tra to r's de ci si on ); i f itis no t, t he n e ndth e in qu iry andaffi rm

th e d eci si on . (2 ) If t he ad m in is tra to r's de ci si on in factis “ de no vo wron g,” th en de te rm in e whe th er h e was ve st edwit h d is cret io n i n re vi ewin g c la im s; if n ot , endjud ic ia l i nq ui ry an d re ve rs e th e d eci si on . (3 ) If t he ad m in is tra to r's de ci si on is “ de no vo wron g” an d h e was ve st edwith d is cret io n i n re vi ewin g c la im s, t he n d et erm in e whe th er “ reas on ab le ” g ro un ds supp orte d i t (h en ce, rev ie w hi s d eci si on un de r th e m or e d efer en ti al arb it rary andcap ric io us st an da rd ). (4 ) If n o re as on ab le gro un ds ex is t, t he n e ndth e in qu iry andrev ers e th e ad m in is tra to r's de ci si on ; i f reas on ab le gro un ds do ex is t, the n de te rm in e if

he op erat edun de r a co nf li ctof i nt eres t. (5 ) If t he re i s n o c on fli ct , th en en d the in qu iry andaffi rm th e d eci si on . (6 ) If t he re i s a c on fli ct , th e co nf li ctsh ou ldm erel y

be a fact orforth e co urt t o t ak e in to acco un t wh en de te rm in in g wh ethe r an ad m in is tra to r's de ci si on was a rb itrary andcap ric io us . Bla nk en sh ip v. Metr o. Li

fe Ins . Co. , 64 4 F .3d13 50 , 13 54 -5 5 (1 1t h C ir.) cer t. de ni ed , 13 2 S . Ct. 8 49 (20 11 ). The Ret ire m en t Bo ard ’s dec is io n was de no vo co rrec t, an d t hu s s urvi ve s
sc ru ti ny un de r ei th er a de no vo orarb it rary andcap ric io us st an dard . The Ret ire m en t Bo ardco rrec tl y co nc lu de d t ha t Se ct io n 9 of t he 19 91 Set tl em en t d oe s
no t af fectin an y

way Mo rri s’s re ti rem en t b en efi ts , as t he pl ai n l an gu ag e in di cat es th atit s o nl y

pu rp os e was to pre ve ntth e 1 99 1 S et tl em en t fr om waiv in g,

3 Case: 12-10754 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 3 of 4di m in is hi ng , alt eri ng or m od ifyin g h is th en -ex is ti ng ret ire m en t b en efi ts . The

Ret ire m en t Bo ardwas t he refo re co rrec t i n d eci di ng th atMo rri s was no t en ti tl edto 10 0% o f hi s re ti rem en t b en efi ts be cau se he ha d p rev io us ly recei ve d a25 % reduc ti on of h is ret ire m en t b en efi ts in 19 80 in th e fo rm of a n Ear ly Paym en t Ben efi t. Thu s, we af

firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t t o t he Nati on al Fo otba ll Leag ue Ret ire m en t Bo ard
. AFFIRMED.

4 Case: 12-10754 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 4 of 4