Case Name: Renee CAMPOS, Appellant, v. MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE COMPANY; United of Omaha Life Insurance Company, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-12-04
Citations: 23 F. App'x 614
Docket Number: No. 01-2160
Parties: Renee CAMPOS, Appellant, v. MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE COMPANY; United of Omaha Life Insurance Company, Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 23
Pages: 614–615

Head Matter:
Renee CAMPOS, Appellant, v. MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE COMPANY; United of Omaha Life Insurance Company, Appellees.
No. 01-2160.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 7, 2001.
Filed Dec. 4, 2001.
Before McMILLIAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Renee Campos appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court for the District of Nebraska granting summary judgment to Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company and United of Omaha Life Insurance Company. Campos brought this action to recover benefits from a disability insurance plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). For reversal, she argues that the plan administrator's setoff of her plan benefits by the amount of her social security disability benefits, on the ground that both were payable as a result of the "same disability," was contrary to the plain language of the plan.
Upon de novo review of the district court's grant of summary judgment, we conclude that the plan administrator's decision — -based in part on interpreting "same disability" to mean "based upon the same period . and cause of disability," and not "based on the same medical diagnosis" — -was not an abuse of discretion. See Sahulka v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 206 F.3d 763, 767-68 (8th Cir.2000) (standard of review; where plan gives administrator discretionary authority to determine eligibility, abuse-of-discretion standard is used unless beneficiary can show conflict of interest or serious procedural irregularity that caused serious breach of plan administrator's duty); Finley v. Special Agents Mut. Benefit Ass'n, 957 F.2d 617, 621 (8th Cir.1992) (court determines whether administrator's interpretation of plan language was abuse of discretion by considering whether (1) interpretation was consistent with plan goals, (2) interpretation renders any language in plan meaningless or internally inconsistent, (3) interpretation conflicts with ERISA's substantive or procedural requirements, (4) administrator has interpreted relevant terms consistently, and (5) interpretation is contrary to plan's clear language).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.