Filed: Feb. 02, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-60340 Summary Calendar LORETTA CHAPMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ITT HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, ITT HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (USDC No. 3:96-CV-532-WS) _ February 1, 2001 Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff-appellant Loretta Chapman appeals the dis
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-60340 Summary Calendar LORETTA CHAPMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ITT HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, ITT HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (USDC No. 3:96-CV-532-WS) _ February 1, 2001 Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff-appellant Loretta Chapman appeals the dist..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-60340 Summary Calendar LORETTA CHAPMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ITT HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, ITT HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (USDC No. 3:96-CV-532-WS) _______________________________________________________ February 1, 2001 Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff-appellant Loretta Chapman appeals the district court’s summary * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. judgment that she was not entitled to continued disability payments under defendant-appellee Hartford Life’s benefits plan. Hartford made a full and fair attempt to appraise the merit of Chapman’s claim. As a result it decided that Chapman had failed to show that any physical disorder rendered her totally disabled. As the district court explained in its careful opinion and order, that decision is supported by the record and within the administrator’s discretion. AFFIRMED 2
