Marsh v. St Joseph Regn Hlth

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Marsh v. St Joseph Regn Hlth

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-20068 Summary Calendar

PATRICIA MARSH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ST. JOSEPH REGIONAL HEALTH CENTER,

Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CV-1096 -------------------- November 19, 2002

Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Patricia Marsh is appealing the district court’s order

granting the defendant St. Joseph Regional Health Center’s

(hereinafter the “hospital”) motion for summary judgment on Marsh’s

Employee Retirement and Income Security Act (ERISA) claims. Marsh

contends that the hospital terminated her because she made a claim

for injury benefits under the hospital’s employee benefit plan.

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 02-20068 -2-

Marsh failed to come forward with evidence raising an

inference that the hospital terminated her with the specific

discriminatory intent of retaliation for her seeking benefits under

the ERISA plan. Thus, she failed to carry her burden of

establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, the necessary

first element of an ERISA claim. See Stafford v. True Temper

Sports,

123 F.3d 291, 295

(5th Cir. 1997).

Further, Marsh failed to provide any evidence showing that the

hospital’s stated reason for her termination, the downsizing of the

staff, was pretextual or false. Marsh failed to present evidence

showing that the true purpose of the action was to deny her

benefits under the employee benefit plan.

Id.

Marsh failed to satisfy her summary judgment burden of

producing evidence showing the existence of genuine issues for

trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

477 U.S. 317, 324

(1986);

FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e). Thus, the district court did not err in

granting the hospital’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing

Marsh’s complaint.

AFFIRMED.

Reference

Status
Unpublished