Paul Harris v. UNUM Life Insurance Co., No. 09-15574 (11th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MAY 13, 2010 JOHN LEY CLERK ________________________ No. 09-15574 Non-Argument Panel ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 08-02328-CV-T-26-TGW PAUL HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Foreign Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (May 13, 2010) BEFORE TJOFLAT, WILSON and HILL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This is an appeal brought by Paul Harris (Harris), a licensed physical therapist assistant (PTA), under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., specifically § 1132(a)(1)(b). After two hip replacement surgeries, and three previous diagnoses for AIDS, tuberculosis, and necrosis of the hip, Harris filed a claim for long-term disability benefits under his insurance policy, funded and administered by Unum Life Insurance Company of America (UNUM). UNUM paid Harris full disability benefits for two years, based upon the policy s regular occupation provision. After twenty-four months, however, the UNUM policy s definition of disability reverted to the inability to perform the duties of any gainful occupation. Setting forth thirteen pages of detailed facts in its order, the district court agreed with UNUM that clearly Harris had the ability and transferable skills to perform certain sedentary gainful occupations as defined by the policy, such as a museum scheduler, a generic dispatcher, and a customer-center representative. Harris admitted that he could do his laundry, prepare meals, vacuum and clean his home, cook and grocery shop. Harris also serves as a guardian ad litem, uses a computer and takes afternoon swims. Finding that Harris had failed to provide 2 support for his claim that he could not perform even a sedentary job, the district court granted UNUM s motion for summary judgment. We have thoroughly reviewed the record in this case, the briefs, and the arguments of counsel. Finding no error, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
