Sherwood

Sherwood v. United Parcel Service Flexible Benefits Plan Short Term Disability (STD) Plan

Good Law
156 F. App'x 941
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 6, 2005No. 04-55364; D.C. No. CV-03-04539-SVWCalifornia726 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Denise Sherwood, an employee of United States Parcel Service (“UPS”), argues on appeal that the administrator of the UPS Flexible Benefits Plan, Short Term Disability Plan, a benefits plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461 , abused its discretion when it denied her claim for short-term disability benefits.

Courts review the denial of ERISA-disability benefits for abuse of discretion when, as here, a benefits plan grants “ ‘the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan.’ ” See Jebian v. Hewlett-Packard Co. Employee Benefits Org. Income Prot. Plan, *942 349 F.3d 1098, 1102-03 (9th Cir.2003) (quoting Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115 , 109 S.Ct. 948 , 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989)), cert. denied,— U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 2956 , 162 L.Ed.2d 887 (2005). 1 Given this restrictive standard of review, we affirm the district court’s conclusion that there was no abuse of discretion. See Jordan v. Northrop Grumman Welfare Benefit Plan, 370 F.3d 869, 875 (9th Cir.2004) (“We can set aside the administrator’s discretionary…

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.