Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Lowder v. Hartford Life & Acc, 04-1594 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-1594 Visitors: 22
Filed: May 11, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1594 BRENDA P. LOWDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HARTFORD LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee, and GROUP BENEFIT PLAN; FARMER'S TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-02-1355-4-23) Submitted: April 27, 2005 Decided: May 11, 2005 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Ju
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1594 BRENDA P. LOWDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HARTFORD LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee, and GROUP BENEFIT PLAN; FARMER'S TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE, INCORPORATED, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-02-1355-4-23) Submitted: April 27, 2005 Decided: May 11, 2005 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chalmers C. Johnson, CHALMERS JOHNSON LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Debbie W. Harden, Katherine T. Lange, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Brenda P. Lowder appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her claim seeking disability benefits from a plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Lowder v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. CA-02-1355-4-23 (D.S.C. Mar. 24, 2004). 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 - 3 -
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