Please read our Copyright Notice and Disclaimers before you use this resource.
RODOWICZ v. MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 22499 (1st Cir. September 15, 1999)-One-time severance payments triggered by single events, like "golden handshake" offers to encourage retirement, do not constitute "plans." But a benefit scheme that requires ongoing employer investment and supervision obligations would. Go to detailed analysis.
DESIDERIO v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITIES DEALERS, INC., 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 23269 (2nd Cir. September 22, 1999)-Section 18 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 evinced a clear intent to encourage arbitration of Title VII claims. Go to detailed analysis.
RADLEY -v.- EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 23372 (2nd Cir. September 24, 1999) (unpublished)-The Court reinforced its prior reasoning that although an employer does not enjoy carte blanche to make statements that the employer knows to be false, or that have no reasonable basis in fact, Kodak’s representatives made statements that were accurate representations of then-existing facts or, at most, personal predictions or opinions about whether they believed the plan then in effect would change in the near future. Go to detailed analysis.
SAMAROO v. SAMAROO, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 23221 (3rd Cir. September 24, 1999).-Upon the death of Winston Samaroo, his former wife sought pre-retirement survivor’s annuity benefits. She would have been entitled to them except that she and her husband were divorced, and neither the divorce decree nor the property settlement mentioned any rights to the survivor’s annuity. After her former husband’s death, Robichaud obtained a nunc pro tunc amendment to the divorce decree purportedly creating an entitlement to the annuity. The district court properly held that the amended order was not a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) capable of conferring on Robichaud the benefits she sought. Go to detailed analysis.
ELLIOTT v. SARA LEE CORPORATION, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 22093. (4th Cir. September 14, 1999)-Fourth circuit declined to follow the "treating physician rule," suggesting that deference to a patient’s long-term physician could be outweighed by "persuasive contradictory evidence" provided by the several other physicians. Go to detailed analysis.
RIVERS v. CENTRAL AND SOUTH WEST CORPORATION, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 21332 (5th Cir. September 7, 1999)-After her ex-husband’s death, a former wife sought a portion of the pension benefits which were being paid to his second wife. This court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment against her. Plaintiff failed to obtain a QDRO prior to her former husband’s retirement date, and benefits irrevocably vest in the plan participant’s current spouse on the date of the participant’s retirement. Go to detailed analysis.
WARD v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. ASSOCIATES' HEALTH & WELFARE PLAN, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 24831 (6th Cir. September 30, 1999) (unpublished)- Court denied subrogation to plan. Plan may recover only the portion of the recovery in excess of the attorneys' fees and then sue to recover the fees from the attorneys. Go to detailed analysis.
BROWN v. AMERICAN LIFE HOLDINGS, INC., 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 21047 (8th Cir. September 3, 1999)-Claim that ERISA plan's investment strategy was a breach of fiduciary duty was time-barred; claim that Plan failed to provide governing plan documents rejected with exception of one document. Go to detailed analysis.
PALMISANO v. ALLINA HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 21652 (8th Cir. September 10, 1999)-Under Minnesota law, employer's statements to the media concerning grounds for employee's discharge were protected by qualified privilege; while ERISA plan violated disclosure requirements, plaintiff was not entitled to claimed benefits. Go to detailed analysis.
DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION N.A., INC. v. COUNTY OF SONOMA, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 21560 (9th Cir. September 9, 1999)-In a previous proceeding, the Supreme Court held that that ERISA did not preempt the apprentice prevailing wage law, and remanded the case to this court. This court now affirmed the district court’s determination that the apprentice prevailing wage is state regulation and the NLRA does not preempt it. Go to detailed analysis.
HURD v. ROSS, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 22718 (9th Cir. September 9, 1999)- Ninth Circuit found that the district court was correct in finding no breach, because TSA could only act at the direction of the Plan Administrator with regard to the Plan’s assets (and therefore had no discretionary authority to abuse). Go to detailed analysis.
WETZEL
v. LOU EHLERS CADILLAC GROUP LONG
TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE PROGRAM, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 21327 (9th
Cir. September 7, 1999)-Wetzel appeals from the district court's summary
judgment in favor of Defendants in Wetzel's ERISA claim for long-term disability
insurance benefits. The district court determined that Wetzel's claim was
time-barred. In doing so, the district court fell prey to an ambiguity that
resulted from
the opinions in Nikaido v. Centennial Life Insurance Co., 42 F.3d 557 (9th
Cir. 1994) and Williams
v. UNUM Life Insurance Co. of America, 113 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir
1997). The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court. Go to detailed analysis.
WHATLEY v. CNA INSURANCE COMPANIES, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 22504 (11th Cir. September 20, 1999)-Plaintiff brought an action under ERISA to recover disability benefits from Continental Casualty Company ("CNA"), Baker Brothers, Inc., and Baker Brothers, Inc. Long Term Disability Plan ("the Plan"). The district court granted CNA's and the Plan's motion for summary judgment on the ground that Whatley's employment with Baker Brothers, Inc. was terminated before Whatley met the requirements for benefits under his disability plan. Reviewing de novo (since the plan did not grant the administrator discretion), this court found that because there were disputed issues of material fact, summary judgment was not appropriate. Go to detailed analysis.
