# Williams v. Retirement Board of the Bert Bell-Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan & the NFL Player Supplemental Disability Plan

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · March 28, 2003 · 61 F. App'x 362

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7216994

## Case

- **Full name:** Delvin WILLIAMS, Jr., an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of the Bert Bell-Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan and the NFL Player Supplemental Disability Plan, Plaintiff—Appellee v. RETIREMENT BOARD OF THE BERT BELL-PETE ROZELLE NFL PLAYER RETIREMENT PLAN AND THE NFL PLAYER SUPPLEMENTAL DISABILITY PLAN William V. Bidwell Thomas J. Condon Eddie J. Jones Taylor Smith Leonard Teeuws Jeffrey Van Note, individuals, as members of the Retirement Board of the Bert Bell-Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan and the NFL Player Supplemental Disability Plan, Defendants—Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 28, 2003
- **Citations:** 61 F. App'x 362
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Berzon
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7216994

## Opinion text

MEMORANDUM *
1. We review the Board’s decision for abuse of discretion, because the Plan grants discretion to the Board. Jebian v. Hewlett-Packard Co. Employee Benefits Org. Income Prot. Plan, 310 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir.2002). The Board’s decision must be upheld where, as here, substantial evidence in the record supports it. McKenzie v. Gen. Tel. Co. of Cal., 41 F.3d 1310, 1316-17 (9th Cir.1994).
First, medical evidence supports the determination. Dr. Holmboe found, in 1983, that Plaintiff was able to engage in “supervisory employment.” Dr. Harrington opined in 1984 that Plaintiff was disabled only with respect to “work which involves any significant requirement for lifting, stooping, stretching, bending, prolonged *363 standing or walking.” By implication he thus agreed with Dr. Holmboe that Plaintiff could perform supervisory or other sedentary work. In 1997, Dr. Harrington wrote that, as of May 1995, Plaintiffs “findings, symptoms, and disabilities continued unchanged”—i.e., his physical condition had not worsened—since 1984.
Second, Plaintiffs work history supports the Board’s determination. Plaintiff earned a salary, listed his profession as “Executive,” and worked for three employers, until resigning due to medical problems. Actual employment in sedentary positions demonstrates employability in such positions.
2. It follows that the district court also erred in awarding attorney’s fees and costs to Plaintiff.
REVERSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7216994. Public record. Not legal advice.