Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Harrell v. Continental Casualty, 03-1698 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-1698 Visitors: 17
Filed: Feb. 02, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1698 LEON HARRELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CNA INSURANCE COMPANIES; CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY; QUORUM HEALTH GROUP, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Carolinas Hospital System; QHG OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Carolinas Hospital System; CAROLINAS HOSPITAL SYSTEM GROUP LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Westo
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1698 LEON HARRELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CNA INSURANCE COMPANIES; CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY; QUORUM HEALTH GROUP, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Carolinas Hospital System; QHG OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Carolinas Hospital System; CAROLINAS HOSPITAL SYSTEM GROUP LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-292-4-12) Submitted: December 22, 2003 Decided: February 2, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chalmers C. Johnson, CHALMERS JOHNSON LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. John E. Schmidt, III, Kerry B. McTigue, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Leon Harrell appeals the district court’s orders denying his disability claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1168 (2000), his request for sanctions under 29 U.S.C. § 1132, his requests for attorneys’ fees and costs, and his request for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its various orders. See Harrell v. CNA Insurance Co., No. CA-99-292-4-12 (D.S.C. filed Jan 15 and entered Jan. 16, 2003; Jan. 21, 2003; May 14, 2003; May 15, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 2 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer