Dishman

Dishman v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of America

Good Law
269 F.3d 974·1 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8896
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 17, 2001Nos. 99-55963, 99-56077California7,611 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Nelsonciruit, J.

ORDER

The Opinion filed May 8, 2001, is withdrawn. A revised Opinion has been filed in its place.

With the amendments made in the revised Opinion, the panel has voted unanimously to deny the petition for rehearing. Judge T.G. Nelson and Judge Berzon deny the petition for rehearing en banc and Judge Beezer so recommends.

The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc and no active judges has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35.

The petition for rehearing and the petition for. rehearing en banc are DENIED.

OPINION

UNUM Life Insurance Company of America (“UNUM”) appeals a bench trial judgment and consequent attorneys’ fee award in favor of John Dishman, an ERISA plan participant and benefits claimant. On cross-appeal, Dishman asserts that the district court erroneously dismissed as preempted his state law tort claim. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

John Dishman was Executive Director of the Adams, Duque & Hazeltine law firm (“AD & H”) from 1986 until July 1993, when he resigned complaining of debilitating migraine headaches. He successfully *978 applied for long-term…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.