Filed: Oct. 29, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 13-30550 Document: 00512423095 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/29/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 13-30550 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 29, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk GAYL PAYTON, Plaintiff–Appellant, versus HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant–Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:12-CV-387 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit J
Summary: Case: 13-30550 Document: 00512423095 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/29/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 13-30550 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 29, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk GAYL PAYTON, Plaintiff–Appellant, versus HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant–Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:12-CV-387 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Ju..
More
Case: 13-30550 Document: 00512423095 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/29/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 13-30550 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 29, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk GAYL PAYTON, Plaintiff–Appellant, versus HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant–Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:12-CV-387 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 13-30550 Document: 00512423095 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/29/2013 No. 13-30550 Gail Payton sued Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company (“Hart- ford”), the insurer and claims administrator of an ERISA-governed group long- term disability benefit plan in which she had been a participant, challenging the decision to terminate her benefits. The district court granted summary judgment to Hartford on the ground of res judicata based on a judgment in a similar suit in which Payton’s claims were denied. Payton appeals pro se. In its Order and Reasons, the district court correctly observed that “[t]he instant matter appears to represent an attempt on the part of Plaintiff to sup- plement her claims from the original law suit with additional documentation.” The court explained that “the instant suit concerns the same policy, the same alleged injuries and disabling condition, and the same time period.” Payton cannot litigate the same issues twice. The summary judgment is AFFIRMED. 2