Legal News

Case Summaries

ERISA

[08/31] Cent. States Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. O'Neil Bros. Transfer & Storage Co.
In a multi-employer pension fund administrator's suit against an employer seeking interim payment of withdrawal liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, district court's grant of summary judgment for administrator is affirmed as defendant's default is governed by the provisions of 29 U.S.C. section 1399(c)(5)(B), and under that section, as interpreted reasonably by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), the entire amount of the withdrawal payment is immediately payable upon default and that obligation is not deferred because of the pendency of arbitration.

[08/31] Howley v. Mellon Fin. Corp.
In plaintiff's suit for benefits and for unlawful discrimination under ERISA, as well as several related state law claims, arising from denial of plaintiff's claim for benefits under defendant's Displacement Program, district court's grant of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is affirmed as, although the district court erred in applying a heightened standard of review and by considering the extra-record evidence that managers helped plan plaintiff's termination prior to the sale of the company, it is nonetheless clear that defendant abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's claim for benefits.

[08/30] Bell v. Pfizer, Inc.
In an action for failure to provide ERISA benefits, judgment for defendants is affirmed where defendants' alleged misrepresentations concerned only plaintiff's stock benefits under a non-ERISA plan and, therefore, did not violate any fiduciary obligations under ERISA.

[08/17] Marshall v. Baggett
In an action to recover delinquent contributions to an ERISA plan, judgment for plaintiff is vacated where the district court erred in granting the default judgment because the complaint did not support a judgment against defendant in her individual capacity.

[08/12] Gastronomical Workers Union Local 610 v. Dorado Beach Hotel Corp.
In a suit brought by the trustees of a multi-employer pension fund against employers under 29 U.S.C. section 1132(a)(3), which supplies a cause of action in favor of an ERISA fiduciary, claiming that employers failed to make sufficient payments to keep the Fund in compliance with ERISA's minimum funding requirement for 2005, judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) district court's dollar-certain judgment is vacated as, the record states that, by the time the court entered the judgment, the deficiency may have vanished, and the record contains no explanation of the vanishing deficiency sufficient to salvage the judgment; 2) district court did not err in denying remediation under section 502(g)(2); and 3) district court's order denying relief under section 502(g)(1) is vacated in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Hardt, and remanded for the district court to determine whether the trustees have achieved some degree of success on the merits, and decide whether to award attorneys' fees, costs, and/or other remedies encompassed within section 502(g)(1).

[08/10] Young v. Verizon's Bell Atlantic Cash Balance Plan
In plaintiff's class action suit under ERISA section 502(a) and U.S.C. section 1132(a) against Verizon and its Cash Balance Plan, claiming that defendant made two errors in calculating her opening cash balance, and hence her ultimate pension benefit under the plan, district court's grant of defendant's equitable reformation of its plan to correct a scrivener's error is affirmed as, although ERISA's rules for written plans are strictly enforced, they are not so strict as to prevent equitable reformation of a plan that is shown, by clear and convincing evidence, to contain a scrivener's error that is inconsistent with participants' expected benefits.

[08/10] Khoury v. Group Health Plan, Inc.
In an action disputing defendant-insurer's award of residual disability benefits to which plaintiff was entitled, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in finding the appeals committee had before it the very same information that plaintiff contended that defendant intentionally hid; 2) the district court properly considered the existence of a conflict of interest; and 3) the district court did not err in finding defendant's interpretation of the relevant contract provisions was reasonable.

[08/09] Jones v. ReliaStar Life Ins. Co.
In an action claiming that defendant insurer began offsetting the disability benefits plaintiff received under an ERISA plan by the amount of disability benefits he collected from the Department of Veterans Affairs, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where the district court's decision involved an application of policy language to undisputed facts, and the administrative record was sufficient to permit a fair evaluation of defendant's decision, and thus the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's request for discovery.

[08/04] Holmstrom v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
In plaintiff's ERISA action against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) for termination of her long-term disability benefits, district court's grant of summary judgment for MetLife on plaintiff's claim for benefits and MetLife's counterclaim to obtain a setoff for Social Security payments plaintiff received, is reversed and remanded where: 1) plaintiff has shown several other reasons for finding that MetLife acted arbitrarily and capriciously in terminating her benefits and then sticking with that decision through the administrative reviews for which plaintiff provided exactly the sort of detailed information that MetLife had demanded; 2) plaintiff's long-term benefits must be reinstated retroactively as of August 5, 2005; and 3) the district court must have an opportunity to consider plaintiff's request for attorney fees and prejudgment interest on remand.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[09/01] Fisher v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
In an action against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and two Missouri police officers following an incident involving counterfeit money orders at a Raymore Wal-Mart store, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) given these undisputed facts, probable cause supported plaintiff's warrantless arrest; 2) attorney's fees were proper because plaintiff's continued prosecution of her false arrest claim against the officers in the face of the evidence upon discovery was unquestionably groundless and unreasonable; and 3) the record reflected no evidence of racial animus or hostility toward plaintiff.

[09/01] Sprinkles v. Associated Indem. Corp.
In plaintiffs' bad faith action against Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, arising from an underlying suit against defendant and his employer for causing the death of plaintiffs' father in an automobile accident, trial court's judgment sustaining the insurer's demurrer is affirmed as, under the complaint and matters judicially noticed, the defendant-employee was an insured, rendering the automobile exclusion in the GCL policy applicable, and Fireman's Fund had no duty to defend the employer.

[08/31] Mader v. US
In an action against the U.S. under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging the Department of Veterans Affairs acted negligently in providing medical treatment to plaintiff's husband, dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed where a plaintiff meets the Act's jurisdictional prerequisites when she provides the relevant agency with: 1) sufficient information for the agency to investigate the claims; and 2) the amount of damages sought.

[08/30] Luo v. Mikel
In an action alleging serious injury sustained during an automobile accident within the meaning of New York Insurance Law section 5102(d), summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where the district court's exercise of jurisdiction was proper. However, the order is vacated in part where, taken together with plaintiff's subjective evidence as to the impact of the injury on her functioning, plaintiff's medical evidence was sufficient to raise a question of fact issue as to serious injury pursuant to N.Y. Ins. Law section 5104(a).

[08/30] Meyers v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger
In plaintiff's occupational injury lawsuit against his employer, Amtrack, under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the ground that plaintiff failed to provide any evidence to establish the required causation element of his FELA action is affirmed as, because plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the reports and testimony of his proffered causation experts were properly barred by the district court, and as such, plaintiff failed to raise genuine issues of material fact with respect to the causation element of his FELA claim.

[08/30] Next Step Med. Co., Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson Int'l

[08/30] Lechoslaw v. Bank of America
In plaintiff's suit against a bank for damages, claiming that a four-and-a-half month delay in receiving his $31,787.34 disrupted the construction of a motel and restaurant in Poland and caused him severe emotional distress, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proving that the Bank in Poland met the requirements for the exercise of personal jurisdiction, and trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Bank did not waive its defense of lack of personal jurisdiction; 2) there was no abuse of discretion on the facts in the court's exclusion of the statement as offered against Bank of America (BoA); 3) there was no evidence that BoA violated chapter 93A in any of its dealings with plaintiff, and the district court properly entered judgment in its favor; and 4) it was not an abuse of discretion for the courts not to reopen discovery according to the Hague Convention.

[08/30] Miranda v. Bomel Constr. Co., Inc.
In plaintiff's negligence suit against a general subcontractor and a subcontractor, claiming that defendants negligently, carelessly and unlawfully allowed excavated dirt, located in a vacant lot next to his office, to be in a dangerous, defective, and unlawful condition so as to cause plaintiff to suffer severe injuries and damages when he breathed the particles from the excavated dirt, trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) defendants met their burden of proof it was only a possibility, not a reasonable medical probability, plaintiff contracted Valley Fever by inhaling an airborne Cocci spore that originated from the soil at the site; and 2) trial court properly sustained the evidentiary objections to plaintiff's experts' speculative conclusions about causation.

[08/30] Critzer v. Enos
In plaintiffs' suit against a homeowners association (HOA), and a property owner and its successor in interest, involving a dispute concerning a window installed in defendant-property owner's upstairs bathroom, trial court's order enforcing the parties' settlement is reversed where: 1) the order enforcing the settlement finally determined the rights of the parties, and therefore, the order is amended to include an appealable judgment; and 2) because there was neither an oral settlement all parties personally agreed upon, nor a written settlement signed by all of the parties, the court lacked authority under the summary procedure of section 664.6 to enforce any settlement.

More...

Workers' Comp

[08/31] Hayes Lemmerz Int'l, Inc. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co.
In an employer's suit against its insurer for refusing to tender defense in an underlying suit under its workers' compensation and employer liability policy, judgment of the district court in favor of the insurer is affirmed as, because defendant was, by virtue of Indiana law, a joint employer, insurer was contractually obligated to reimburse the reasonable expense of defendant's getting itself dismissed from the tort suit. However, because the defendant is not claiming that insurer refused to pay that amount, but rather, it is complaining that the insurer breached its duty to defend by failing to advise defendant that it's law firm was not defending the suit properly, the insurer had no duty to provide its insured's lawyers with legal advice.

[08/27] Transcon. Ins. Co. v. Crump
In plaintiff's suit against her deceased husband's insurer for workers' compensation death benefits, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and remanded where: 1) the treating physician's opinion was based on a reliable foundation and, therefore, legally sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict; 2) the trial court's omission of the but-for component in the jury charge constitutes reversible error; and 3) an insurance carrier is entitled to have a jury determine the disputed amount of reasonable and necessary attorney's fees for which it is liable.

[08/19] Milpitas Unified Sch. Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
In a School District employee's suit for workers' compensation claims, the decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board is affirmed as, the language of section 4660 permits reliance on the entire American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, including the instructions on the use of clinical judgment, in deriving an impairment rating in a particular case.

[08/12] Alvarez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
In a claimant's objection to a panel qualified medical evaluator's ex parte communication with defense counsel, and a request for a new panel qualified medical evaluator under section 4062.3(f), in a workers' compensation proceeding for death benefits, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's (WCAB) denial of the petition is annulled and remanded as section 4062.3 expressly prohibits ex parte communications with a panel qualified evaluator, with no exception based on the initiator of the communication or for "administrative" matters. However, because a certain degree of informality in workers' compensation procedures has been recognized, not every conceivable ex parte communication permits a party to obtain a new evaluation from another panel qualified medical evaluator.

[08/05] Casanova v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
In a former baggage handler's suit against American Airlines, claiming he was terminated in retaliation for claiming workers' compensation benefits, jury verdict for plaintiff of more than $1 million, $112,000 for lost wages, $250,000 for emotional injury, and $724,000 for punitive damages, and district court's denial of defendant's post-judgment motions are reversed as defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 as plaintiff's dissembling and insubordination was sufficient cause for his discharge.

[07/15] Gacek v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
In a former baggage handler's suit against an airline for retaliatory discharge in violation of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act, district court's grant of summary judgment for the airline is affirmed as no reasonable jury could find that the airline had fired plaintiff because its claims administrator had opened a file on an injury rather than because it believed that he had lied about having the flu and had disobeyed the doctor's orders to wear a splint on an injured finger and not lift anything with that hand.

[07/15] Milan v. City of Holtville
In plaintiff's suit against her former employer, a municipal water treatment plant, under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), claiming that the city had failed to attempt to accommodate her disability and that she was capable of performing the essential functions of her job, trial court's judgment awarding the plaintiff back pay and emotional distress damages is reversed where: 1) the city did not have to offer plaintiff any accommodation as the record shows that almost one year after she was injured, the city's workers' compensation administrator advised her that its doctor did not believe she would be able to return to her job and offered her rehabilitation and retraining benefits; 2) the record shows that plaintiff was given ample opportunity to express interest in retaining her job and for more than 18 months she failed to do so; and 3) given these circumstances, where the employee failed to express any meaningful or definitive interest in retaining her job, FEHA did not require that her employer discuss with or offer her accommodations for her disability.

[07/14] US v. Lay
Conviction of defendant for investment adviser fraud and multiple mail and wire fraud, related to a hedge fund investment by the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation, is affirmed as, because a hedge fund investor can in some circumstances have a fiduciary relationship with an investor, the jury instructions were correct and sufficient evidence supports defendant's conviction. Furthermore, defendant's challenges to the district court's evidentiary rulings and its orders of restitution of $212 million and forfeiture of $590,526.23 are rejected.

[07/06] Koszdin v. State Comp. Ins. Fund
In six class action suits brought by two attorneys against employers and workers' compensation insurance carriers, claiming that they failed to pay interest owed on attorney's fee awards issued by the WCAB, dismissal of the complaint following the sustaining of a demurrer for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed where: 1) under the relevant provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, plaintiffs have standing to seek interest on the attorney's fees awarded directly to them by the WCAB; but 2) the trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the claims for unpaid interest where the WCAB did not expressly order the payment of interest in its attorney's fee awards.

More...