Conley v. Pitney Bowes, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 8745 (8^th Cir. May 7, 1999)-WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges

Court affirmed dismissal of Plaintiff's ERISA claims. Held that the Plaintiff did not have a claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2) since Plaintiff was not seeking relief that could benefit the plan. Nor could Plaintiff bring a claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)(B) since Plaintiff could bring a claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). Nor may Plaintiff bring an action for plan wide relief under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)(A), since, as noted above, he has not pleaded a systematic error or abuse in need of reform.

Court denied Plaintiff's claim for benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). Plaintiff had received benefits after plan had deemed that plaintiff could not perform his own occupation. However, Eighth Circuit upheld the district court's affirmation of the plan's decision that plaintiff was not disabled from all occupations. Appellate court had no problem with deciding that the district court correctly applied the abuse of discretion standard of review even though defendant had engaged in several procedural errors. District Court had decided that even under the less strict standard of review Plaintiff would not be disabled.

Court also held that Social Security's standard for reviewing claims of subjective pain is not relevant for an ERISA claim.