Case Name: Emma J. MILLER, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jasper Pruitt, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ONEBEACON INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-22
Citations: 430 F. App'x 298
Docket Number: No. 11-60032
Parties: Emma J. MILLER, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jasper Pruitt, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ONEBEACON INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 430
Pages: 298–298

Head Matter:
Emma J. MILLER, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jasper Pruitt, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ONEBEACON INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11-60032
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 22, 2011.
Bennie L. Turner, Esq., Angela Turner Lairy, Esq., Attorney Advisor, Turner & Associates, P.L.L.C., West Point, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Roy Allen Smith, Jr., Esq., Daniel, Coker, Horton & Bell, P.A., Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Emma Miller sued OneBeacon Insurance Company, seeking additional compensation for the unskilled nursing services she had provided to Jasper Pruitt because of his work-related injury. The district court granted summary judgment because the Mississippi Workers' Compensation Commission has already ruled on Miller's claim for compensation, which is thus barred under the doctrine of res judicata. In its thorough Memorandum Opinion dated December 16, 2010, 2010 WL 5232422, the court held that Miller has not presented evidence that OneBeacon acted in bad faith or that she is entitled to punitive damages.
We have reviewed the briefs and pertinent portions of the record and have consulted the applicable law. The summary judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons stated by the district court.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.