to have been able to designate a beneficiary other than her spouse, she could have named a different beneficiary if she obtained spousal consent or a lost spouse waiver. Because she did not perform either of these acts, the Estate is not and never was eligible to be designated a beneficiary of her benefits. (See id.) Therefore, the Estate is neither a beneficiary within the meaning of ERISA nor within the meaning set forth in the SPD. The “mere possibility” that the Estate could have been designated a beneficiary of Mrs. Park’s pension benefits had she submitted a retirement application and obtained Mr. Park’s consent or successfully sought a lost spouse waiver, is “[injsuffi-cient to confer status under § 1132.” Coleman v. Champion Int’l Corp., 992 F.2d 530, 533 n. 6 (5th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>) (citing Keys v. Eastman Kodak Co., 739 F.Supp.
holding that plan participants in a defined benefit pension plan have no claim to the plans surplus assets holding that in a bivens action service upon employee in his official capacity does not amount to service in his individual capacity holding that a pension plan participants son not designated a beneficiary lacked standing to maintain an erisa action in both his individual capacity and his capacity as the representative of the deceased participants estate holding that the son of a pension plan participant who had not been designated to receive any of his fathers pension benefits stood no closer to beneficiary status than any other person holding plaintiff stated claim in his individual capacity