Gregory Hill v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL, No. 14-41159 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-41159 Document: 00513160873 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/19/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 14-41159 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED GREGORY HILL, Plaintiff - Appellant August 19, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. BERT BELL/PETE ROZELLE NFL PLAYER RETIREMENT PLAN, Defendant - Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4-13-CV-74 Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Gregory Hill, a retired football player, sought benefits from the Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan (“the Plan”), which is an ERISA plan that provides disability benefits to former NFL players. The Plan administrator granted Hill’s claim for benefits but found that he was entitled to a lower monthly benefit than Hill requested. Hill sought review of the Plan administrator’s decision in federal court, arguing that he is entitled to a * Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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: 14-41159 Document: 00513160873 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/19/2015 No. 14-41159 greater monthly benefit. Reviewing under the deferential abuse-of-discretion framework, the district court ruled in favor of the Plan. Hill appealed. Having studied the record and briefs, and having heard the oral argument of the parties, we agree with the district court’s conclusions that the Plan administrator did not abuse its discretion in interpreting the Plan or in deciding the benefit to which Hill is entitled under the Plan. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the district court. 1 AFFIRMED. “[I]f the language of the plan . . . grant[s] the plan administrator discretionary authority to construe the terms of the plan or determine eligibility for benefits, a plan’s eligibility determination must be upheld by a court unless it is found to be an abuse of discretion.” Atkins v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Ret. Plan, 694 F.3d 557, 566 (5th Cir. 2012). “[F]actual determinations made by the plan administrator during the course of a benefits review will be rejected only upon a showing of abuse of discretion.” Id. 1 2
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.
