Coreno v. Baker Material Handling Corporation Pension Plan, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 6482 (6^th Cir. April 5, 2000) (unpublished)-This court affirmed the district court's summary judgment against Coreno, a former employee of Baker Material Handling Corporation.  Coreno sued under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), contesting Baker's denial of his eligibility for early retirement benefits and alleging that Baker gave him legally insufficient notice of the denial in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1133.

            As a preliminary matter, this court decided that the plan in question gave discretion to the administrator when it authorized a committee to "make payment to such persons as are entitled thereto pursuant to this Plan" and where the SPD stated, " The Plan Administrator shall decide if you have a right to a benefit."

            The central issue of Coreno's coverage dispute was whether a 1984 plan amendment reducing the number of years required for early retirement eligibility from fifteen to ten years was retroactive to employees who had already been laid off.  Coreno had accumulated more than ten but less than fifteen years service by the time he was laid off in 1982.  Apparently, the plan offered eight other employees in similar circumstances early retirement benefits.

            The plan administrator determined that employees are "covered employees" under the Plan in effect when they left the company and, therefore, Coreno was a "covered employee" under a 1981 Plan but not under the amendment which took effect after his departure.  The district court found that this interpretation was not arbitrary and capricious.

            As for Coreno's assertion that the plan administrator gave him insufficient notice under 29 U.S.C. § 1133, this court found that although Baker's failed to include in its denial an explanation of the appeal procedures or to whom Coreno should appeal, the ensuing communications between Coreno and Baker employees "were sufficient to meet the purposes of Section 1133 in insuring that the claimant understood the reasons for the denial of the claim as well as [his] rights to review of the decision."