Ford
Ford v. MCI Communications Corp. Health & Welfare Plan
Opinion
Opinion
Rawlinson, J.
This case requires us to tread into the thorny thicket of the separate judgment rule. Having done so, we conclude that consideration of Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure results in the conclusion that the order granting summary judgment in this case was sufficiently final and the appeal was timely. On the merits, we affirm the district court’s ruling that Elizabeth Ford’s (Ford) ERISA claims fail.
I. Background and Procedural History
A. The Long Term Disability PJan and the Claim
Ford was employed by MCI and was a member of the MCI Communications Long Term Disability Plan (Plan). The Plan was established and is maintained by MCI and its successor corporate entity, World-corn, Inc., as an employee welfare benefit plan. MCI is listed as the “Plan Administrator/Plan Sponsor” in the materials provided to the Plan members. ITT Hartford Insurance/Hartford Life (Hartford) is the claims administrator for the plan. The Plan does not list Hartford as a plan administrator.
Ford has coccidioidomycosis and fibro-myalgia, conditions which she asserts originated during the course and scope of her work for MCI. Contending…