Donna Dean v. Daimler Chrysler Life, No. 10-2143 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2143 DONNA DEAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DAIMLER CHRYSLER LIFE, DISABILITY AND HEALTH CARE BENEFITS PROGRAM, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:09-cv-02992-RDB) Submitted: July 11, 2011 Decided: July 19, 2011 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scott B. Elkind, ELKIND & SHEA, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. William E. Altman, Danielle C. Beasley, VERCRUYSSE MURRAY & CALZONE, P.C., Bingham Farms, Michigan, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Donna Dean appeals the district court s order granting summary judgment in favor of Daimler Chrysler Life, Disability and Health Care Benefits Program ( Chrysler ) in this Employee Retirement reviewed Income the Security parties Act briefs action. and the We record have on carefully appeal and conclude that Dean has waived appellate review of the arguments in Sections II through V of her opening brief. to adequately support the arguments with Counsel failed specific facts and citations to the record, as required by Rule 28(a)(9)(A) of the See Edwards v. City of Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) ( Failure to comply with the specific dictates of [Rule 28] with respect to a particular claim triggers abandonment of the claim on appeal. ); Carducci v. Regan, 714 F.2d 171, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (Scalia, Cir. J.) (declining to review asserted but unanalyzed . . . claim because appellate courts do not sit as self-directed boards of legal inquiry and research, but [rather] . . . as arbiters of legal questions presented and argued by the parties before them ). This court cannot assume counsel s duty to advocate on Dean s behalf. With regard to Dean s claim that the district court failed to information take into related account only to Chrysler s financial whether conflict 2 a woes, of that interest existed. Even without the financial information, the district court found that a conflict of interest existed but that no other factor indicated an abuse of discretion in connection with Chrysler s denials of benefits. See Booth v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Assocs. Health & Welfare Plan, 201 F.3d 335, 342-43 (4th Cir. 2000) (discussing eight factors pursuant to which courts determine whether an abuse of discretion exists). Moreover, this information was not part of the administrative record upon which the denial was based. the district court. Thus, it was not properly before See Bernstein v. Capital Care, Inc., 70 F.3d 783, 788-89 (4th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. 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
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.
