X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:This action arises from the crash of a Life Flight helicopter owned and operated by Memorial-Hermann Healthcare System and Memorial-Hermann Hospital System (collectively MHHS). All three MHHS employees aboard the helicopter � Charles Atteberry Jr., John Pittman Jr., and Silvia Lynn Ethridge � perished in the crash. At the time of their deaths, the employees were covered by MHHS’ ERISA Occupational Benefits Plan (the Occupational Benefits Plan) which essentially provided death benefits of $1,000,000 to the estate of the deceased employee or, in the absence of a will, to the employee’s heirs at law. Each of the disputes centers on the scope and extent of MHHS’ claimed subrogation rights following the payment of death benefits pursuant to MHHS’ Occupational Benefits Plan. Dalinda Shelton appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment against her and its conclusion that MHHS’ subrogation right gives MHHS the right to control the prosecution and settlement of the claims of the estate of Silvia Lynn Ethridge. MHHS appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment with respect to Ben Ethridge and its conclusion that MHHS is not subrogated to Ben Ethridge’s wrongful death claim arising from the death of his daughter Silvia Ethridge. Carol Pittman appeals the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment against her as well as its subsequent denial of her motion for partial summary judgment against MHHS and its conclusion that MHHS is subrogated to her claims, both as an individual and as the independent executrix of the estate of John Linwood Pittman, Jr. HOLDING:Afirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part. Because it is undisputed that MHHS is subrogated to the Ethridge estate’s causes of action, the sole issue of contention between Shelton and MHHS is the meaning of the term “subrogation” as used in the Occupational Benefits Plan. Shelton contends that the Administrative Committee’s interpretation of the meaning of subrogation amounts to an abuse of discretion, because MHHS’ subrogation rights do not allow MHHS the right to exclusively control the Ethridge estate’s causes of action without the consent or participation of the Ethridge estate representative. The court concludes that the administrative committee’s interpretation of the meaning of subrogation is legally correct under both an ordinary-meaning analysis and the three-part test this court employs to determine the legal correctness of an ERISA plan administrative committee’s determination. MHHS appeals the district court’s denial of MHHS’ motion for summary judgment and its holding that Ben Ethridge retained his wrongful death cause of action against third parties, because he was not a beneficiary of MHHS’ Occupational Benefits Plan death benefits. MHHS contends that the cdministrative committee’s determination was not an abuse of discretion for the following reasons: 1. Silvia Ethridge designated Ben Ethridge as a beneficiary of her life insurance and accidental death and dismemberment insurance plans, Ben Ethridge also should be considered a designated beneficiary of Occupational Benefits Plan death benefits; 2. under Article 8.2 of the Occupational Benefits Plan, MHHS must pay the Occupational Benefits Plan death benefit as the designated Occupational Benefits Plan beneficiaries request; 3. at the request of Ben Ethridge and Shelton, MHHS made the death benefit check payable to Shelton as the personal representative of the Ethridge Estate; and 4. Ben Ethridge did receive money from Shelton. The court concludes that the administrative committee’s determination that Ben Ethridge received Occupational Benefits Plan death benefits and was therefore required to comply with the Occupational Benefits Plan’s subrogation and assignment provisions is legally incorrect. MHHS has not demonstrated that Ben Ethridge was a recipient of Occupational Benefits Plan death benefits. Although Ben Ethridge did receive life insurance and accidental death and dismemberment insurance proceeds, which are not at issue in the instant case, he did not receive from MHHS any portion of the Occupational Benefits Plan death benefit, nor was he a designated beneficiary of Occupational Benefits Plan benefits. The entire amount of the death benefit was made payable to Dalinda Shelton as the personal representative of the Ethridge Estate; Ben Ethridge did not receive any money directly from MHHS’ Occupational Benefits Plan. Moreover, the money Ben Ethridge did receive from Shelton was a gift to Ben Ethridge and was drawn from Shelton’s own funds. 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. The court reverses the judgment of the district court insofar as it granted MHHS’ motion for summary judgment with respect to Pittman in her individual capacity, and remands the case to the district court. OPINION:Benavides, J.; Garwood, Benavides and Stewart, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.