Case Summaries
ERISA
[08/19]
Gaeth v. Hartford Life Ins. Co.
An award of attorney's fees to claimant pursuant to a finding that plan administrator's termination of long term disability benefits was arbitrary and capricious because it was not supported by any medical evidence of claimant's physical condition is vacated and remanded for reconsideration where the district court erred in its analysis under two of the factors of the test set forth by Secretary of the Department of Labor v. King, 775 F.2d 666 (6th Cir. 1985).
[08/14]
Crowell v. Shell Oil Co.
In a suit by former Pennzoil employees alleging that they were underpaid for the value of their retirement and savings plans when they were terminated upon acquisition of Pennzoil by defendants, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) defendants' notices of removal to federal court were not defective; 2) the Letters of Agreement at issue were "benefit plans" subject to ERISA preemption, and were not excepted from ERISA as "excess benefit plans"; 3) the district court properly drew factual inferences in plaintiffs' favor before granting defendants' summary judgment motion; 4) the district court properly reviewed the plan administrator's decision under an abuse of discretion standard; and 5) the administrator's interpretation of the plan was a fair reading of the plan and was uniformly applied, and was therefore legally correct.
[08/08]
Pell v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc.
In an employee's suit claiming that defendant underpaid his pension benefits, a ruling awarding relief under ERISA is affirmed, and rulings regarding remedies are reversed where: 1) plaintiff had standing to sue under ERISA; 2) plaintiff was entitled to equitable relief under ERISA based on an equitable estoppel theory; 3) an injunction requiring future higher payments was a form of equitable relief authorized by ERISA, and did not rewrite or informally amend the pension plan; 4) a constructive trust could be imposed on defendant's plan funds to obtain restitution; and 5) plaintiff's adjusted service date must be calculated with reference to defendant's misrepresentations as to the correct date.
[08/08]
Kouvchinov v. Parametric Tech. Corp.
In an employment-discrimination action brought by plaintiff against his former employer, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) in the absence of some significantly probative evidence showing discriminatory intent, the district court did not err in entering summary judgment for the defendants on the ERISA discrimination claim; and 2) there is no cognizable evidence of actual malice to support plaintiff's claim that defendant tortiously interfered with an advantageous business relationship.
[08/07]
Speciale v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Assoc.
In an ERISA claim for long-term disability benefits, summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed where the administrator reasonably determined that plaintiff's fibromyalgia did not totally disable her.
[07/31]
Franciscan Skemp Healthcare, Inc. v. Cent. States Joint Bd. Health & Welfare Trust Fund
In a suit for negligent misrepresentation and estoppel over defendant-benefit plan's refusal to pay for medical services provided by plaintiff-provider, denial of plaintiff's motion to remand to state court is reversed and dismissal of claims is vacated where, because the claims related to an alleged misrepresentation rather than a mere denial of benefits, and because the duties alleged to have been breached had a basis independent from the ERISA statute, the doctrine of complete preemption did not apply and there was no federal jurisdiction.
[07/31]
Lanfear v. Home Depot, Inc.
In a matter of first impression as to whether a complaint for breach of fiduciary duty regarding the diminution of value of a defined contribution retirement plan states a claim for benefits under ERISA, dismissal of the complaint with prejudice is reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded where: 1) the district court erred when it treated the threshold issue as one of subject-matter jurisdiction and when it dismissed the former employees' complaint with prejudice; 2) a complaint for breach of fiduciary duty that seeks restitution of the diminished value of a defined contribution plan is for benefits, not damages; and 3) the case is remanded to determine whether to dismiss the complaint without prejudice or stay the litigation to allow former employees to pursue administrative remedies.
[07/30]
Cent. States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Gen. Materials, Inc.
In an action brought by a pension fund and trustee raising a claim for overdue pension payments, summary judgment for defendant-employer is affirmed where employer's duty to contribute to the fund ended with the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) referenced in a correlating Participation Agreement.
More...
Injury & Tort Law
[08/19]
Oltman v. Holland Am. Line, Inc.
In an action alleging that plaintiffs both contracted a serious gastrointestinal illness on a cruise ship operated by defendants, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where a contractual one-year limitations period should have been equitably tolled based on plaintiffs' timely filing of a state court action and their prompt filing in federal court after the state action was dismissed based on a forum selection clause.
[08/19]
Fellner v. Tri-Union Seafoods, L.L.C.
In a class-action suit alleging injury caused by methylmercury and other harmful compounds in defendant's canned tuna products, grant of a motion to dismiss is reversed and remanded where: 1) the FDA had not enacted a pervasive regulatory scheme regarding mercury in tuna that would preempt plaintiff's state-law claims; 2) the FDA's decision not to require warning labels on tuna was not a conclusive determination preempting a state failure-to-warn claim; and 3) the FDA had not expressly rejected mercury warnings as misbranding under federal law.
[08/19]
Joyce v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.
In a suit by shareholders of a telecommunications company alleging that defendant, while advising the company during its acquisition by another company, failed to advise plaintiffs on minimizing their exposure to financial losses, grant of a motion to dismiss is affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part where: 1) plaintiffs were bringing a direct action on their own behalf, not a derivative one on behalf of the corporation, and to that extent had standing; but 2) plaintiffs' constructive fraud claim required them to allege that defendant owed them a fiduciary duty, but no such duty never arose.
[08/19]
King v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co.
In a malicious prosecution suit alleging that defendant fired plaintiff without probable cause to believe that she had stolen train tickets, denial of plaintiff's discovery motion and summary judgment for defendants are affirmed where: 1) a determination by the System Board of Adjustment that plaintiff had stolen from defendant did not preclude litigation of that question in the context of the malicious prosecution suit; but 2) plaintiff failed to produce evidence of the date on which defendant had filed a criminal complaint against her, and thus would not be able to prove her claim that defendant lacked probable cause at the time of the filing.
[08/19]
US v. Flaherty
In an action brought under the False Claims Act alleging that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provided a reimbursement check to defendant as a result of a fraudulent scheme, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where qui tam actions cannot be brought pro se.
[08/19]
Garcia v. Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc.
In wrongful death claims brought by plaintiff-estates against defendant rental car companies, grant of summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the Graves Amendment, a federal tort reform statute which purports to shield rental car companies from certain vicarious liability suits, preempts the tort claims at issue; and 2) the statute is within the boundaries of Congress's Article I powers.
[08/18]
Walter v. Drayson
In an action brought by one of four siblings who are beneficiaries of a trust created by their mother asserting violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and state laws, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) contrary to plaintiff's claim, the district court did not misapprehend the "operation and management" test in the context of an associated-in-fact enterprise; and 2) due to a lack of federal question jurisdiction, state law claims were properly dismissed under Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
[08/18]
Ibrahim v. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
In an action involving the claims of a Malaysian Muslim passenger detained at a U.S. airport because her name is on the federal government's No-Fly List, dismissal of claims against various defendants is affirmed in part, but reversed in part and remanded where: 1) contrary to the ruling below, the district court retains original jurisdiction over plaintiff's APA claim regarding placement of her name on the No-Fly List pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1331; and 2) Bivens claims and state-law claims against defendant-TSA employee were improperly dismissed.
More...
Workers' Comp
[08/18]
US v. Simpson
A sentence and order of restitution imposed for defendant's crime of mail fraud, involving his underreporting of payroll information for his businesses to his workers' compensation insurance carriers, is affirmed where the district court correctly concluded that the "loss" caused by this conduct was the amount of additional premiums that the insurance carriers would have charged had they been given accurate information.
[08/11]
Ridings v. Riverside Med. Ctr.
In an employee's suit alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and state worker's compensation law, summary judgment for defendant-employer is affirmed where: 1) an interference claim failed because evidence regarding plaintiff's invocation of FMLA, and defendant's requests that she provide adequate medical certification, did not demonstrate that plaintiff was entitled to leave under the FMLA and that defendant denied her FMLA benefits to which she was entitled; 2) defendant could not be deemed to have retaliated against plaintiff by asking her to fulfill her obligations under the FMLA; and 3) a state-law retaliation claim failed as defendant articulated a valid basis for terminating plaintiff, and plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence to show that such basis was pretext.
[08/08]
Mt. Diablo Unified Sch. Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Temporary disability payments commence when a school district pays an injured employee his or her normal wages under Education Code section 44043.
[08/06]
C&C Marine Maint. Co. v. Bellows
A Benefits Review Board (BRB) order holding petitioner-employer liable to respondent-employee for disability compensation is affirmed where: 1) the deadline for filing a claim was tolled until respondent became or should have become aware of the relationship between his injury and his employment, and his claim was therefore timely; 2) substantial evidence supported the BRB's finding that the employment injury aggravated respondent's pre-existing arthritic condition; 3) petitioner did not present evidence sufficient to overcome a presumption that the injury aggravated the pre-existing condition; and 4) petitioner was not eligible for relief from payments under 33 U.S.C. section 908(f).
[08/06]
C&C Marine Maint. Co. v. Bellows
A Benefits Review Board (BRB) order holding petitioner-employer liable to respondent-employee for disability compensation is affirmed where: 1) the deadline for filing a claim was tolled until respondent became or should have become aware of the relationship between his injury and his employment, and his claim was therefore timely; 2) substantial evidence supported the BRB's finding that the employment injury aggravated respondent's pre-existing arthritic condition; 3) petitioner did not present evidence sufficient to overcome a presumption that the injury aggravated the pre-existing condition; and 4) petitioner was not eligible for relief from payments under 33 U.S.C. section 908(f).
[08/06]
Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Staffing Concepts, Inc.
In a suit over workers' compensation insurance policies, an order striking a motion to compel arbitration is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction where the order was a delay incident to an orderly process, and not a final refusal of a request to stay judicial proceedings.
[08/04]
Aguilera v. Alaska Juris F/V
In the context of general maritime law and injured seamen, the circuit court rules that maintenance and cure payments are subject to withholding for child support obligations, so long as those payments constitute income under relevant state law.
[07/29]
US v. Webber
Conviction for making false statements to obtain federal employees' compensation benefits is affirmed, and the sentence is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, where: 1) the failure of the indictment to allege that the amount of loss was in excess of one thousand dollars and the omission of an instruction requiring a jury finding on the amount of loss were harmless; 2) the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find that defendant acted willfully; 3) a jury instruction on willfullness was proper; but 4) an order to pay restitution in excess of the government's losses constituted an illegal sentence.
More...
|
