Opinion ID: 1037472
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Daniel’s Authority as Administrator

Text: McGowan’s last argument alleges that an ambiguity exists as to whether Daniel, the Plan’s Administrative Manager, was acting within the scope of his authority when he determined that McGowan’s disability benefits should be terminated. McGowan raises this argument in order to void the termination of his disability benefits. We do not reach this issue, however, because McGowan is foreclosed from challenging the termination because he did not timely exhaust his administrative remedies, as explained above. See Coop. Benefit Adm’rs, Inc. v. Ogden, 367 F.3d 323, 336 (5th Cir. 2004) (denying a claim for benefits when the pensioner failed to timely exhaust available 7 Case: 13-30051 Document: 00512338134 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/12/2013 No. 13-30051 administrative remedies); Bourgeois v. Pension Plan for the Emps. of Santa Fe Int’l Corps., 215 F.3d 475, 479 (5th Cir. 2000) (“This court requires that claimants seeking benefits from an ERISA plan must first exhaust available administrative remedies under the plan before bringing suit to recover benefits.”). McGowan could have challenged Daniel’s authority as part of the administrative review procedure. Having failed to timely pursue administrative review, McGowan is barred from raising this claim.