Maune v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local #1, Health and Welfare Fund, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 11180 (8th Cir. 1996)-- Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges. Plaintiff underwent reconstructive surgery following breast cancer. After the operation she began to experience joint pain, stiffness, fatigue, and low grade fevers. Dr. Klearman diagnosed her as having symptoms of arthritis and a possible mild case of lupus. Dr. Klearman did not recommend removal of the implants, noting that there were no hard data verifying a link between silicone breast implants and lupus. Plaintiff began drug therapy for her arthritis. Plaintiff sought a second opinion from Dr. Khouri. Dr. Khouri, believing that the silicone breast implants were causing the symptoms, recommended that the implants be removed. In Plaintiff's follow-up visit to Dr. Klearman in May 1992, Dr. Klearman noted an improvement in Plaintiff’s joint pain and inflammation and continued to disagreed with Dr. Khouri's recommendation. Plaintiff decided to proceed with the surgery and sought pre-certification from the benefit fund. The fund's medical consultant concluded that the surgery was not medically necessary, relying on (1) Dr. Klearman's notes stating that Plaintiff had symptoms of arthritis and had responded favorably to the medication; (2) the lack of evidence that Plaintiff actually had lupus; and (3) the absence of any link between silicone breast implants and lupus. The fund denied Plaintiff's pre-certification. Plaintiff appealed the denial and submitted additional evidence, including a letter from Dr. Klearman noting that an increasing number of reports link silicone breast implants and lupus and stating that the procedure should be covered by the fund because Dr. Khouri "strongly recommended" removal. The fund again denied pre-certification and Plaintiff appealed. While the fund was considering her appeal, Plaintiff underwent surgery to have the implants removed. The fund denied Plaintiff appeal again and Plaintiff filed a post operative claim. The fund denied benefits, and after exhausting administrative appeals, the Plaintiff filed suit against the fund. The district court granted the fund's motion for summary judgment and awarded the fund approximately $ 25,000 in attorney's fees. On appeal, the circuit court concluded that the record contained ample evidence to support the decision that the procedure was not medically necessary and affirmed the summary judgment. However, the court reversed the award of attorney fees noting that the district court specifically found that the Maunes did not bring their claim in bad faith and recognized that an award of attorney's fees to the fund may discourage others who are similarly situated from bringing claims for wrongful denial of benefits.