The United States Fifth Circuit recently reversed a district court ruling awarding attorney’s fees to a former NFL player seeking disability benefits from the NFL Player Retirement Plan in Cloud v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Ret. Plan.1
Case Background
The Plaintiff, Michael Cloud, was a second-round draft pick in the 1999 NFL draft to the Kansas City Chiefs. During his seven-year football career, Cloud suffered multiple concussions. After leaving the NFL, he sought disability benefits for his head injuries from the Bert/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan, a welfare benefit plan jointly administered by representatives of the NFL players’ association and team owners. While the plan awarded Cloud some benefits based on his injuries, it was concluded that he was ineligible for the highest tier.
Cloud sued the plan under ERISA, claiming it wrongfully denied him benefits to which he was entitled, and also failed to provide him with a “full and fair” review. The district court initially sided with Cloud and ordered the plan to pay the benefits sought, along with roughly $1.2 million in attorneys’ fees.
On appeal, however, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded to the district court to enter judgment in the plan’s favor. Although the NFL Plan’s review board may well have denied Cloud a full and fair review, and despite the fact that Cloud was probably entitled to the highest level of benefits, the Fifth Circuit found that Cloud did not immediately appeal his initial denial, as the plan documents required. Even assuming, the court found, that the plan had denied Cloud a full and fair review, “no amount of additional review can change the fact that Cloud is ineligible for reclassification.”
Attorney Fees Issue
Although Cloud obtained no affirmative relief, he argued, on remand, that he was nevertheless entitled to an award of attorney’s fees because the district court made favorable findings that he was wrongly treated by the plan. The district court awarded attorney’s fees on that basis, but the Fifth Circuit again reversed.
While “numerous federal laws authorize the award of attorney’s fees only to a ‘prevailing party,’” the court noted, other federal laws, including ERISA, allow fee awards so long as the court deems it “appropriate” or within the court’s discretion. “Under prevailing party statutes, fees may be awarded only to ‘those who prevail in full,’ while in provisions like the one at issue here, fees are also available to those who ‘prevail in part.’”
However, “some degree of success is still required before a fee award may be granted.” While it can be argued that Cloud won a moral victory, that alone is not sufficient to justify an award of attorney’s fees.
Conclusion
In highlighting the differences in the way that attorney fee demands are evaluated under different statutory structures, this decision makes it clear that even under the more liberal standards, the requesting party must affirmatively prevail in some way.
1 Cloud v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Ret. Plan, No.25-10337, 2025 WL 3673303 (5th Cir. Dec. 18, 2025).
