Kuretich v. Metropolitan Life Insur. Co., 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 34038 (6th Cir. December 17, 1999) (unpublished).- This court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Kuretich’s breach of contract action against Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. ("MetLife") since ERISA preempted the claim. Kuretich, an account representative for Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MetLife"), was injured when she slipped on a gum wrapper and fell at work. Shortly thereafter, Kuretich's treating physician, Dr. Daniel Chatterley, evaluated Kuretich and diagnosed acute lumbosacral sprain and acute left dorsal sprain. Dr. Chatterley's report stated that Kuretich would be disabled from her job for approximately three months.
Under MetLife’s Insurance and Retirement Program (the "Plan"), Kuretich received "compensation continuation benefits" for the first four weeks of her disability, then began receiving short-term disability benefits. Shortly thereafter, however, MetLife learned that Kuretich owned and managed a local restaurant notwithstanding her claimed disability. After Kuretich failed to respond to MetLife’s several requests for additional medical information, MetLife terminated Kuretich's short-term disability (STD) benefits.
Two years later, Kuretich’s attorney contacted MetLife, requesting long-term disability benefits. Met-Life inquired into Kuretich’s failure to contest her earlier termination of STD benefits, and requested a new medical evaluation. A nurse found there was insufficient evidence to support Kuretich's disability claim, and a physician found that Kuretich's residual functional capacity allowed her to perform light work notwithstanding evidence of a mild impairment. Accordingly, MetLife once again denied Kuretich’s request for disability benefits.
Kuretich filed a breach of contract action against MetLife in state court, and MetLife removed it to district court. The district court granted MetLife’s motion for summary judgment alleging ERISA preemption. Reviewing de novo, the court found that the preemption finding was correct. Citing Cromwell v. Equicor-Equitable HCA Corp., 944 F.2d 1272, 1276 (6th Cir. 1991), the court pointed out that the focus of preemption inquiry is whether in essence such a claim is for the recovery of an ERISA plan benefit as was the case here). This court further declined to apply federal common law to Kuretich’s preempted claims, since "federal common law has developed under ERISA only in those instances in which ERISA is silent or ambiguous."
