Justia ERISA Opinion Summaries

Waskiewicsz suffers from type-1 diabetes, major depression, and gender identity disorder She worked as a product design engineer for Ford from 1990 until October, 2010, when she suffered “a debilitating emotional breakdown.” In December, after her father found her barricaded in her house, she sought long-term disability benefits under Ford’s Plan, governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001. Under the plan: An Active Employee whose employment is terminated . . . shall cease to be eligible for Benefits as of the earlier of: (a) the date the Employee has been notified; or (b) the day prior to the date of such termination (in the case of retroactive terminations) . .... An employee is required to notify the Claim Processor ... if the employee is absent for more than five (5) consecutive Workdays.” She did not give notice within the five-day period and was, apparently, terminated in the interim. UniCare concluded that she did not qualify for benefits. The Sixth Circuit reversed. On remand, Waskiewicz must be given the opportunity to show that her alleged failure to comply with the requirements of the Plan was due to the very disability for which she seeks benefits. View "Waskiewicz v. UniCare Life & Health Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The insurer operates a preferred-provider system that offers patients better benefits, or lower co-payments, for patronizing medical providers who have agreed with the insurer to accept lower reimbursements (per procedure) in exchange for a better flow of business. The chiropractor plaintiffs signed such “participating provider” or “network” agreements. Providers bill the insurer directly regardless of whether a patient obtained coverage as part of an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) welfare-benefit plan or through some other means, such as an affinity-group policy or an insurance exchange under the Affordable Care Act. Chiropractors sued, contending that, when determining how much to pay for services rendered to patients, the insurer failed to use the procedures required by ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1133. The district court concluded that plaintiffs are beneficiaries under ERISA and awarded damages and injunctions requiring the insurer to follow section 1133 and Department of Labor regulations. The Seventh Circuit reversed, noting that plaintiffs concede that they are not participants under the ERISA definition and that a network contract between a medical provider and an insurer does not make that provider a “beneficiary” under ERISA. View "Pa. Chiropractic Ass'n v. Independence Hosp. Indem., Inc." on Justia Law

Until 2011, Woodbridge, the largest wholesale grocery distributor by revenue in the U.S., contributed to the fund pursuant to collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001, Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA), 29 U.S.C. 1381-1461, employers withdrawing from multi-employer pension plans must pay the share of the fund’s total unfunded vested benefits allocable to them. Woodbridge owes $189,606,875 and elected to satisfy its “withdrawal liability” through annual payments instead of a lump sum. Under the MPPAA, annual payments must be based on “the highest contribution rate at which the employer had an obligation to contribute under the plan.” The plan’s board claimed the single highest rate from the multiple contribution rates established in the three CBAs . Woodbridge argued that it was responsible only for a weighted average of those contribution rates. The board also claimed that Woodbridge’s payments should include a 10 % surcharge it had been paying under the 2006 Pension Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. 1085. The Third Circuit affirmed that the annual withdrawal liability payment should be based on the single highest contribution rate, but should not include the surcharge. The “highest contribution” rate means the single highest contribution rate established under any of the CBAs. View "Bd. of Trs. of the IBT Local 863 Pension Fund v. C&S Wholesale Grocers Inc" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, the district court held that Michael's was not liable as a successor employer by weighing continuity of the workforce as the most important factor. At issue was: (1) whether a successor employer, both generally and in the construction industry in particular, can be subject to withdrawal liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA), 29 U.S.C. 1381–1453, amendments to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.; and (2) if so, what factors are most relevant to determining whether a construction industry employer is a successor for purposes of imposing MPPAA withdrawal liability. The court concluded that a construction industry successor employer can be subject to MPPAA withdrawal liability, so long as the successor took over the business with notice of the liability; that the most important factor in assessing whether an employer is a successor for purposes of imposing MPPAA withdrawal liability is whether there is substantial continuity in the business operations between the predecessor and the successor, as determined in large part by whether the new employer has taken over the economically critical bulk of the prior employer’s customer base; and, in this case, the district court erred in weighing continuity of the workforce as the most important factor and applying an incorrect test to determine whether there was continuity of the workforce. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Resilient Floor Covering Pension Trust Fund Bd. of Trs. v. Michael's Floor Covering" on Justia Law

NJBSC is a Bergen County neurosurgical medical practice. NJBSC treated three patients who were members of health-care plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001, and administered by Aetna. Before surgery, each patient executed an assignment to NJBSC. Following treatment, Aetna allegedly underpaid or refused to pay claims for each of the patients. NJBSC filed suit The district court dismissed NJBSC’s complaint, holding that the assigned rights to payment did not give NJBSC standing to sue under ERISA. The Third Circuit reversed, holding that a patient’s explicit assignment of payment of insurance benefits to her healthcare provider, without direct reference to the right to file suit, is sufficient to give the provider standing to sue for those benefits under ERISA. View "N. Jersey Brain & Spine Ctr., v. Aetna Inc" on Justia Law

After Employee ended his employment with Employer he applied for and received state unemployment benefits from the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) and supplemental unemployment benefits (SUB) through a plan offered by Employer. DEED determined that the SUB plan payments counted as “wages” under Minn. Stat. 268.035(29)(A) and determined that Employee had been overpaid state unemployment benefits. An unemployment law judge affirmed. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Employee was entitled to keep the state unemployment benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the SUB plan payments Employee received were not “wages” for purposes of his eligibility for state unemployment benefits, and therefore, Employee was not overpaid state unemployment benefits. View "Engfer v. Gen. Dynamics Advanced Info. Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

OTET appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Hillsboro Garbage, Robert Henderson, and the Estate of Darrol Jackson. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on (1) OTET’s breach of contract claims because the district court found those claims to be preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.; and (2) OTET’s restitution and specific performance claims because the district court concluded that those claims were not cognizable under ERISA as they sought legal - not equitable - relief. The court concluded that the district court properly dismissed the common law breach of contract claims as preempted by ERISA; the district court properly dismissed the restitution and specific performance claims where recent circuit precedent does not support OTET's argument; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying OTET the right to file a third amended complaint where OTET was given two opportunities to amend its complaint and unilaterally decided to eliminate the fraud count and it does not contend that it acquired any knew knowledge or that any misconduct occurred. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "OR Teamsters Emp'ers Trust v. Hillsboro Garbage Disposal" on Justia Law

In 1989, the Supreme Court held that courts should apply de novo review in suits challenging denials of employee benefits governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1), but if the benefit plan provided expressly for a different, more deferential standard of review, that specific provision would control over the default rule of de novo review. Insurance companies and plan sponsors began including such provisions in most benefit plans, typically saying the insurer or plan administrator would exercise discretionary judgment in interpreting a plan or deciding whether to pay benefits. Courts would then apply a deferential standard of review under which a denial would stand unless it was “arbitrary and capricious.” Later, state laws were adopted to protect employees and plan beneficiaries from abuse of such discretion. An Illinois insurance law, prohibited provisions “purporting to reserve discretion” to insurers to interpret health and disability insurance policies. The Seventh Circuit rejected a preemption challenge and applied the state law in a case involving a challenge to an insurance provider’s definition of “disability,” The court did not address whether the denial of benefits was arbitrary and capricious. View "Fontaine v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co" on Justia Law

In 2009, Liu, a physician in a residency program, elected basic life insurance coverage from LINA through his employer’s ERISA plan and elected supplemental coverage in an amount four times his salary. Asked whether, within the last five years he had been diagnosed with “Cancer, Tumor, Leukemia, Hodgkin’s Disease, Polyps or Mole,” he answered “no.” One month after submitting his application, Liu received a cancer diagnosis. On March 1, 2010, the insurance became effective. On April 23, 2010, Liu died. LINA paid the basic benefit of $46,858.49, but reviewed Liu’s medical records, which revealed that Liu had been experiencing symptoms without a diagnosis before submitting his November 12 application. LINA then issued a denial, stating: While the form was completed accurately at the time ... a diagnosis of cancer prior to the coverage approval date was not disclosed … [the] Form states ... any changes in your health prior to the insurance effective date must be reported. His wife responded that Liu was told he would not have to provide evidence of good health, but did not identify the person who made the alleged representation. The court rejected the wife’s suit on summary judgment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Liu breached an application requirement by failing to notify LINA of a cancer diagnosis he received before a policy issued. View "Huang v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am." on Justia Law

Michels is a member of the Pipe Line Contractors Association (PLCA), a trade association that negotiates collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) on behalf of its employer members with unions. In 2006, the PLCA and the Union entered into a CBA in “effect until January 31, 2011, and thereafter from year to year unless terminated at the option of either party after sixty (60) days’ notice.” The CBA required contributions to the Central States multiemployer pension plan, 29 U.S.C. 1000(2), (3), (37). In August 2010, the PLCA informed the Union that it intended to terminate the 2006 CBA on January 31, 2011, and begin negotiations for a new agreement; the parties signed eight extensions, the last ending November 15, 2011. Michels contributed to the pension plan throughout those extensions. The parties agreed that the employers would cease making contributions to the plan as of November 15, 2011; that they would make comparable payments to an escrow fund until a “mutually acceptable” fund was designated; and that they would otherwise extend the terms of the 2006 CBA until December 31, 2011. The fund claimed that the obligation to make contributions had not ended. The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court holding that this was not sufficient to end the duty to contribute. View "Michels Corp. v. Cent. States, SE & SW Areas Pension Fund" on Justia Law