Opinion ID: 37881
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pittman's claims

Text: 28 Pittman concedes that the claims of the Pittman Estate are subject to subrogation because the Pittman Estate received Occupational Benefits Plan death benefits from MHHS. Moreover, as the Pittman Estate's personal representative, Carol Pittman admits she accepted Occupational Benefits Plan death benefits, but did so only on behalf of her deceased husband and not on her own behalf as his wife. As such, Pittman contends that her claims as an individual are not subject to subrogation because she as an individual did not receive Occupational Benefits Plan death benefits, nor did she as an individual contractually assign her claims to MHHS by executing an Acknowledgment of Receipt of Benefits, Subrogation Rights and Confidentiality Agreement. 29 The Administrative Committee read the Occupational Benefits Plan language to mean that Pittman, upon receipt of Occupational Benefits Plan death benefits, subrogated all of her rights, in whatever capacity, to MHHS. We conclude that this interpretation amounts to an abuse of discretion because the Administrative Committee, in reaching its conclusion, ignored the plain language of the Occupational Benefits Plan. 30 Article 11.1 of the Occupational Benefits Plan states that [i]n the event of any Benefit payments made under the Plan to or on behalf of any Employee, the Plan shall, to the extent of such payments, be subrogated to all the rights of recovery... of the Employee. Article 11.1 further states that by participating in the Occupational Benefits Plan, an employee also obligates the legal representative of his estate and that the Plan shall be fully subrogated to any recovery or right of recovery that the estate may have against any third party. The quoted language plainly means that when an employee or his estate accepts Occupational Benefits Plan benefits, the employee or his estate must surrender to MHHS all of its rights against third parties. 31 As applied to the instant case, the Occupational Benefits Plan language means only that the Pittman Estate, via Pittman as the estate representative, must surrender its claims to MHHS. The language does not mean that Pittman must surrender the wrongful death claims she independently possesses as John Pittman, Jr.'s wife merely because she also served as the representative of the Pittman Estate. Because Pittman took Occupational Benefits Plan death benefits as the Pittman Estate representative — and not in her individual capacity — she cannot be made to subrogate to MHHS the wrongful death claims she independently possesses in her individual capacity as the decedent's wife. In other words, MHHS acquired no subrogation rights nor control of any of Pittman's individual claims. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court insofar as it granted MHHS' motion for summary judgment with respect to Pittman in her individual capacity, and remand the case to the district court for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.