http://www.lexisnexis.com/mealeys/news.aspx Headline ERISA Legal News from LexisNexis® en-us http://www.lexisnexis.com/mealeys/images/lexismealeyslogo.gif 130 29 http://www.lexisnexis.com/mealeys/news.aspx Copyright 2012 http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%201%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank PHILADELPHIA - Participants in 401(k) plans who alleged that John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A.) and its related entities violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by charging excessive fees were not required to make a presuit demand on the trustees or join the trustees as defendants, the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled April 16 in reversing a federal district court's judgment on the ERISA claims (Danielle Santomenno, et al. v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company [U.S.A.], No. 11-2520, 3rd Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7545; See June 2011, Page 5). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%202%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank FORT MYERS, Fla. - The sponsor of and participants in a Section 412(i) plan that was found to be noncompliant by the Internal Revenue Service may continue with claims that several firms that designed and administered the plan breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a federal judge in Florida ruled April 23 (Ehlen Floor Covering, Inc., et al. v. Jeffrey Lamb, et al., No. 2:07-cv-666, M.D. Fla.) http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%203%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank CHICAGO - A health plan's denial of benefits was not arbitrary and capricious and although the plan failed to disclose plan documents, the participant failed to demonstrate that she was harmed by the breach, a divided Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled April 19 in affirming summary judgment for the plan on the participant's denial of benefits and breach of fiduciary duty claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (James E. Killian v. Concert Health Plan, et al., No. 11-1112, 7th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 7880; See January 2011, Page 25). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%204%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank NEW YORK - A federal judge in New York on May 3 certified a class of 29 employee benefit plans that lost money after investing plan assets with Bernard Madoff on breach of fiduciary duty claims arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (In re: Beacon Associates Litigation [Buffalo Laborers Security Fund, et al., v. J.P. Jeanneret Associates, Inc., et al.], No. 09 Civ. 777, S.D. N.Y.; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63549). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%205%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank CINCINNATI - The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 13 affirmed a trial court's ruling that 225 current and former employees of United States Steel Corp. (U.S. Steel) may not continue with their claims that the company, their union and their retirement plan administrator violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by intentionally misleading them regarding how pension benefits would be calculated, inducing some to retire early (Dominic Cataldo, et al. v. United States Steel Corporation, et al., No. 10-3583, 6th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7460). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%206%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank RICHMOND, Va. - A federal district court did not err in ruling that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act governed when a participant's cause of action challenging the termination of his long-term disability benefits accrued but that the plan governed the applicable statute of limitations, the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled April 13 in an unpublished opinion affirming the lower court's ruling that the claim was time-barred (Benjamin Belrose v. The Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Company, No. 10-2405, 4th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7506). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%207%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on April 16 declined to review a Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals opinion ruling that retirement plans that failed to use whipsaw calculations in calculating lump-sum payments to participants who received early retirement benefits were not entitled to deference as to the method of calculating the participants' recovery and that the participants' claims accrued when they received their lump-sum distributions (James Barberis, et al. v. Retirement Plan for Employees of S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., et al., No. 11-843, U.S. Sup.; Retirement Plan for Employees of S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., et al. v. James Barberis, et al., No. 11-970, U.S. Sup.; See July 2011, Page 14). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%208%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank COLUMBUS, Ga. - Following a bench trial, a Georgia federal magistrate judge held May 4 that a plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty claim in a suit alleging violations of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) was time-barred and that even if the claim was not time-barred, the plaintiff had failed to show that the defendants were fiduciaries who owed him any duties (Homer Ira Lockhart v. Southern Health Plan Inc., et al., No. 04-0006, M.D. Ga.; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63265). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%209%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank MINNEAPOLIS - Northwest Airlines' defined contribution pension plan does not discriminate based on age in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), even though the formula for determining a participant's benefit level includes factors that are "correlated with age," the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed April 9 (Northwest Airlines, Inc., et al. v. Raymond B. Phillips, et al., No. 11-1730, 8th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7072; See February 2009, Page 13). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2010%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank CHICAGO - Foreign workers' claims that the administrators of plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act improperly withheld taxes from the workers' benefits are barred by the U.S. tax code to the extent the claims seek monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief, a federal judge in Illinois ruled May 2 (Ramon Mejia, et al. v. Verizon Management Pension Plan, et al., No. 11 C 3949, N.D. Ill.; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61090). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2011%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank RICHMOND, Va. - A federal district court order remanding to a long-term disability plan participant's claim challenging a denial of benefits to the claims administrator for reconsideration under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act is not an appealable final judgment, the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held April 20 in ruling that it did not have jurisdiction (Ricky A. Dickens v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, No. 11-1434, 4th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8019). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2012%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank NEW ORLEANS - A district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that benefits paid to retirees of SBC Communications Inc. were not pension benefits within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled April 16 (Frank Stoffels, et al. v. SBC Communications, Inc., et al., No. 11-50148, 5th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7584). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2013%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank WASHINGTON, D.C. - A health plan administrator on April 25 asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that a plan participant may assert the equitable principle of unjust enrichment on the plan's reimbursement claim brought under Employee Retirement Income Security Act Section 502(a)(1) (U.S. Airways, Inc. v. James McCutchen, et al., No. 11-1285, U.S. Sup.; See December 2011, Page 4). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2014%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank NEW YORK - An employer that sold its assets was not exempt from withdrawal liability under the Multi-Employer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA) because the purchaser was obligated to contribute to the pension fund at the same contribution rate but not the same contribution units that the employer contributed presale, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed 2-1 on May 3(HOP Energy, L.L.C. v. Local 553 Pension Fund, No. 10-3889-cv, 2nd Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9088). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2015%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to review a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that Section 702 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, enacted by the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), preempts Montana's version of the law but that ERISA does not preempt a claim for relief under separate state laws governing unfair insurance practices regulating the setting of health insurance premiums (Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, Inc. v. Dale Fossen, et al., No. 11-1155, U.S. Sup.; Dale Fossen, et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, Inc., No. 11-1280, U.S. Sup.; See November 2011, Page 13). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2016%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank NEWARK, N.J. - A federal judge in New Jersey on April 24 in an unpublished opinion dismissed a durable medical equipment provider's putative class action case against a health insurer, saying the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action because the actions taken by the defendant in seeking repayment of money for services provided failed to implicate the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (Tri3 Enterprises v. Aetna Inc., et al., No. 11-3921, D. N.J.; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57158). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2017%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank PHILADELPHIA - A hospital lacked standing as a participant or a beneficiary to bring a claim for benefits under Employee Retirement Income Security Act Section 502(a); therefore, the hospital's breach of contract claim against the sponsor and third-party claims administrator of a medical plan for failure to pay for medical services rendered on behalf of a plan participant were not completely preempted, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled May 2 in remanding the case to state court (Tenet Health System Philadelphia, Inc. v. Diversified Administration Corporation, et al., No. 07-4948, E.D. Pa.; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61395). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2018%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank CINCINNATI - A company is liable for retiree health care benefits and reimbursement for Medicare Part B premiums for retirees of the company's predecessors, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed May 3 (Willard Bender, et al. v. Newell Window Furnishings, Inc., Kirsch Division, et al., No. 11-1335, 6th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9003). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2019%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank WASHINGTON, D.C. - Retirees have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals divided opinion that a sponsor of a health care plan for retirees did not violate the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by amending its plan to eliminate a credit for unused sick leave to be used toward health care costs in retirement because the plan did not promise vested benefits and the plan contained a clause reserving the sponsor's right to modify or eliminate benefits (John Sullivan, et al. v. CUNA Mutual Insurance Society, et al., No. 11-978, U.S. Sup.; See September 2011, Page 10). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2020%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank SCRANTON, Pa. - Participants in their employer's health plan failed to demonstrate that the insurer violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by terminating the insurance contract because the employer breached the contract's underwriting requirements, a federal judge ruled May 3 in granting the insurer summary judgment (New Life Homecare, Inc., et al. v. Blue Cross of Northeastern Pennsylvania, et al., No. 3:06-2485, M.D. Pa.; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61959). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2021%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank NEW YORK - The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion on April 19 vacated a district court's ruling upholding a plan administrator's denial of accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D) benefits under the plan's exclusion for intentionally self-inflicted injuries to the beneficiary of a participant who died from autoerotic activity (Amanda D. Martin v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company, No. 11-1310, 2nd Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7879). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2022%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank NEW ORLEANS - A health plan participant is not entitled to attorney fees on his claim for reimbursement of the costs of treatment, even though the court ruled that the Louisiana Medical Necessity Review Organization (MNRO) Act entitled the participant to a third level of review and was not preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, because the participant did not achieve "some degree of success on the merits," a federal judge in Louisiana ruled April 10 (Thomas H. Kingsmill v. Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Co., et al., No. 09-6787, E.D. La.; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49969). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%201%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank NEW ORLEANS - A health plan participant did not have possession or control of settlement funds that were paid by a third-party tortfeasor and placed in a special needs trust, and, therefore, the plan could not seek reimbursement from the trust for medical benefits it paid on behalf of the participant under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed April 2 (ACS Recovery Services, Inc., et al. v. Larry Griffin, et al., No. 11-40446, 5th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6573). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%202%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - The sponsor of 401(k) plans breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by failing to monitor the record-keeping fees paid by the plans and by failing to negotiate rebates from the investment companies that offered products to the plans' participants, a federal judge in Missouri ruled March 31 (Ronald Tussey, et al. v. ABB, Inc., et al., No. 2:06-CV-04305-NKL, W.D. Mo.; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45240). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%203%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank PHILADELPHIA - The Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 27 vacated a trial court's judgment against the secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor on her claims that a named trustee of a multiemployer welfare arrangement (MEWA) and the marketer of the MEWA breached their fiduciary duties, directing the trial court to determine whether diverted funds were plan assets within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (Secretary of Labor v. James Doyle, et al., No. 10-3598, 3rd Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6215). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%204%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank ATLANTA - The 11th Circuit U.S. Court of on March 19 in an unpublished opinion affirmed an award of $1.25 million in lost opportunity costs and interest against the sole trustee of a 401(k) plan for engaging in prohibited transactions (Secretary, Department of Labor v. Floyd W. Seibert, No. 11-10745, 11th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5623). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%205%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank HOUSTON - Participants in BP's retirement plans failed to overcome the presumption that the plans' investment in company stock was prudent, even after the Deepwater Horizon explosion and uncontained oil spill, a federal judge in Texas ruled March 30 in dismissing the participants' breach of fiduciary duty claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (In re: BP p.l.c. ERISA Litigation, No. 4:10-cv-4214, S.D. Tex.; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44801). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%206%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank NEW YORK - A federal judge in New York on April 5 granted preliminary approval to a $10 million settlement between Bear Stearns Cos. Inc. and participants in its employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) who alleged that the plan fiduciaries breached their duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by allowing the plan to invest in the company's stock when they knew that Bear Stearns' involvement in the securitized subprime mortgage market made it imprudent to do so (In re Bear Stearns Companies ERISA Litigation, No. 1:08-md-01963, 08 Civ. 2804, S.D. N.Y.; See October 2011, Page 11). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%207%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank NEW YORK - A federal judge in New York on March 30 granted preliminary approval of a $150 million settlement between JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. and three pension plans on the plans' claims that JPMorgan breached its fiduciary duty of loyalty by investing the plans' and other entities' cash collateral in medium-term notes (MTNs) of Sigma Finance Inc. (SFI) pursuant to its securities lending program while at the same time extending repurchasing financing to Sigma (Board of Trustees of the AFTRA Retirement Fund v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 09-686; Board of Trustees of the Imperial County Employees' Retirement System v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 09-3020; The Investment Committee of the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority Pension Plan v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 09-4408, S.D. N.Y.; See September 2011, Page 7). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%208%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on March 19 declined to review a divided Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals opinion reversing class certification in a multiemployer trust fund's action alleging that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) breached its fiduciary duties by charging a fee to subsidize coverage for nongroup clients (Pipefitters Local 636 Insurance Fund, et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, No. 11-901, U.S. Sup.; See September 2011, Page 9). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%209%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank SAN FRANCISCO - Retirement plan participants who received summary plan descriptions (SPDs) that did not accurately describe an "annuity equivalent offset" that reduced their benefits were not entitled to the equitable remedies of surcharge or reformation, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled March 16 (Charles D. Skinner, et al. v. Northrop Grumman Retirement Plan B, et al., No. 10-55161, 9th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5517). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2010%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on April 2 denied retired pilots' petition seeking review of a divided ruling by the District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that held that interest is due under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act only if the delay in payment of a lump-sum pension payment is "unreasonable" (James C. Stephens, et al. v. US Airways Group, Inc., et al., No. 11-721, U.S. Sup.; See January 2012, Page 6). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2011%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank PHILADELPHIA - The estate of a 401(k) plan participant may sue the former spouse, who was the named beneficiary, to enforce the former spouse's waiver of her right to the plan proceeds and to recover the plan proceeds, the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled March 20 in a question of first impression in the circuit (Estate of William E. Kensinger, Jr. v. URL Pharma, Inc., et al., No. 10-4525, 3rd Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5741). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2012%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank DETROIT - Retirees on April 9 sought reconsideration of a federal judge in Michigan's determination that they lacked standing to seek a declaration clarifying their rights to lifetime retiree health care benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) (Gerald E. Hawkins, et al. V. Howden Buffalo, Inc., No. 05-CV-74437, E.D. Mich.). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2013%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank ATLANTA - A pension plan amendment did not violate the anti-cutback rule in Section 204(g) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act when it changed the calculation of the offset for Social Security benefits for participants who had not yet reached the plan's earliest retirement age at the time of the amendment, the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled March 23 (Jean Marie Cinotto v. Delta Air Lines Inc., et al., No. 10-14704, 11th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 6075). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2014%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank RICHMOND, Va. - A pension plan filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc on April 3 of a Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals divided unpublished opinion that held that the plan violated the anti-cutback provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by denying a retiree's request for benefits that included an early retirement supplemental benefit because the plain language of the plan included the supplement in its definition of accrued benefit (Noorali Sam Savani v. Washington Safety Management Solutions, LLC., et al., No. 11-1206, 4th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6022). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2015%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court of March 19 declined to review a Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals' Oct. 13 ruling that a retiree benefits-related provision included in an asset purchase agreement constituted a valid plan amendment (Sterling Chemical Inc., et al. v. Robert E. Evans, No. 10-1001, U.S. Sup.; See November 2011, Page 16). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2016%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank CHICAGO - A federal judge in Illinois on March 12 decertified a class in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act action that has been pending since 1996, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate commonality at the class certification stage as required by the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Wal-Mart, Inc. v. Dukes (131 S.Ct. 2541 [2011]) (Robert J. Matz v. Household International Tax Reduction Investment Plan, No. 96 C 1095, N.D. Ill.). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2017%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank CINCINNATI - A collective bargaining agreement (CBA) provision that requires the union to indemnify the employer for liability for withdrawal from a multiemployer pension plan does not violate public policy because the fiduciary is still liable, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed March 16 in an issue of first impression (Shelter Distribution, Inc. v. General Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Local Union No. 89, No. 11-5450, 6th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5501). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2018%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank CHICAGO - The owner of two sole proprietorships was jointly liable as a single employer for unpaid contributions to multiemployer benefit funds under the collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) he signed, whether doing business as one or the other company, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed March 15 in an unpublished ruling (Central Illinois Carpenters Health and Welfare Trust Fund, et al. v. Jay J. Olsen, et al., No. 06-4350, 7th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5442). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2019%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank DALLAS - A federal judge in Texas on March 27 denied out-of-network medical providers' request to remand their reimbursement suit to state court, ruling that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act preempts the breach of contract claim (Paragon Office Services, et al. v. UnitedHealthGroup Inc., et al., No. 11-2205, N.D. Texas; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41793). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2020%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank CARSON CITY, Nev. - The Nevada Supreme Court in an unpublished opinion issued March 21 held that a patient's claims that his health insurers should have known and warned subscribers about a health care provider's unsafe practices should not have been dismissed (Donald Lynam v. Health Plan of Nevada Inc., et al., No. 56165, Nev. Sup.; 2012 Nev. Unpub. LEXIS 421). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2021%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank DENVER - An ERISA-governed disability insurer that denied benefits to a claimant with back pain and depression acted reasonably, the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed March 22 in an unpublished opinion (Dana Peterson, M.D. v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, No. 11-2179, 10th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5977). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2022%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank BALTIMORE - A federal judge in Maryland on April 4 found that an ERISA-governed disability insurer that denied benefits to a claimant with back pain abused its discretion. The judge said the insurer failed to consider claimant's driving ability (Helene Clarke v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, et al., No. 1:10-cv-3107, D. Md.; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47699). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2023%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on April 2 denied review of an Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals divided ruling that a long-term disability benefits plan improperly offset amounts that a participant received in Department of Veterans Affairs benefits (Sun Life and Health Insurance Co., et al. v. James Riley, No. 11-1022, U.S. Sup.; See October 2011, Page 5). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%201%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank DETROIT - Participants in General Motors Corp.'s 401(k) plans who alleged that State Street Bank and Trust Co., an independent fiduciary and investment manager for the plans, breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by waiting until March 31, 2009, to begin divesting the plans of their holdings in company stock are not required to overcome the presumption of prudence at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Feb. 22 (Raymond M. Pfeil, et al. v. State Street Bank and Trust Company, No. 10-2302, 6th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3482; See October 2010, Page 10). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%202%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank PHILADELPHIA - A trial court properly ruled that the fraudulent concealment exception to the statute of limitations applied to claims by a profit-sharing plan's current trustees that a former trustee violated his fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by fraudulently reporting inaccurate information regarding the plan plan's assets and using plan assets for his personal benefit, the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed March 7 in an unpublished opinion (Dr. Fadi Chaaban, et al. v. Dr. Mario A. Criscito, No. 11-2096, 3rd Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4710). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%203%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank RICHMOND, Va. - Participants in Bank of America's 401(k) and defined benefit plans are asking the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse federal district court rulings that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act's statute of limitations bars their claims that the plans' fiduciaries engaged in prohibited transactions and breached their fiduciary duties by selecting bank-affiliated mutual funds as investment options for the plans (Elena M. David, et al. v. J. Steele Alphin, et al., No. 11-2181, 4th Cir.). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%204%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank NEW YORK - A 401(k) plan participant failed to sufficiently plead that the plan fiduciaries breached their fiduciary duties by imprudently selecting and monitoring the plan funds and by allowing excessive fees and expenses to be charged, a federal judge in New York ruled March 6 in granting the fiduciaries' motion to dismiss (Bruce Laboy v. Board of Trustees of Building Service 32 BJ SPRSP, et al., No. 11 Civ. 5127, S.D. N.Y.; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29718). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%205%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank CHICAGO - A federal magistrate judge in Illinois on Feb. 29 granted preliminary approval to a $9.5 million settlement between Kraft Foods Global Inc. and participants in its 401(k) plan on claims that plan fiduciaries violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by allowing excessive fees, holding excessive cash within the plan's company stock funds and offering imprudent funds as investment options (Gerald George, et al. v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., et al., Nos. 1:08-cv-03799, 1:07-cv-1713, N.D. Ill.; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26536; See November 2011, Page 10). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%206%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank KANSAS CITY, Kan. - A federal judge in Kansas on March 6 granted final approval to a $6.5 million settlement on claims by participants in YRC Worldwide Inc.'s (YRCW) retirement savings plan that the plan fiduciaries breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by including company stock as an investment option for participants when it was imprudent to do so (In re: YRC Worldwide, Inc. ERISA Litigation, No. 09-2593-JWL, D. Kan.). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%207%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank GREENSBORO, N.C. - A North Carolina federal judge on Feb. 24 granted final approval of a $5,376,500 common fund established in the second phase of a settlement in a class complaint alleging that a hospital breached its fiduciary duty when it selected its own subsidiary as the network provider for its employees' health plan knowing that its subsidiary would provide the hospital with inflated reimbursement rates (John and Jane Does 1-5, et al. v. North Carolina Baptist Hospital, et al., No. 09-12, M.D. N.C.). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%208%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank PHILADELPHIA - Siemens Corp. did not violate the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by refusing to provide permanent job separation benefits to employees who transferred employment from Westinghouse Electric Corp. to Siemens Corp. pursuant to an asset purchase agreement because Siemens did not adopt the Westinghouse plan, which provided such benefits, as an ERISA "transition" plan, the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Feb. 29 (Ronald Shaver, et al. v. Siemens Corporation, et al., Nos. 10-4147, 10-4279, 10-4791, 10-4792, 3rd Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4081). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%209%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank NEW YORK - The Employee Retirement Income Security Act preempts a retiree's state law claims alleging that his former employer violated an employment agreement to calculate his pension benefits in a manner that was prescribed by the pension plan in effect at the time the agreement was signed, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 on Feb. 9 (Aries Arditi v. Lighthouse International, No. 11-423, 2nd Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2553). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2010%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank NEW YORK - A federal judge in New York on March 7 dismissed with prejudice former and current employees' claims that a health care consortium breached its fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by failing to credit their retirement plans for the actual number of hours worked because the plans tied benefits to compensation actually paid (Claudia DeSilva, et al. v. North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Inc., et al., No. 10-CV-1341, E.D. N.Y.; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30597). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2011%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank CHICAGO - The terms of a participation agreement prohibited an employer from ceasing contributions to a multiemployer pension plan prior to the expiration of a related collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed Feb. 29 (Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, et al. v. Waste Management of Michigan, Inc., No. 10-3286, 7th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4074). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2012%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank NEW YORK - A federal district court properly dismissed a claim for wrongful retention of pension benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act because the plan sponsor restored the retirement account with interest, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Feb. 6 in an unpublished opinion (John Y. Kim v. Columbia University, No. 10-3076-cv, 2nd Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2332). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2013%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank CINCINNATI - A trial court erred in awarding survivor benefits to a pension plan participant's second wife because the plan provided that survivor benefits be paid to the participant's "spouse" and the trial court did not determine whether the participant's first marriage was dissolved by divorce, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Feb. 13 in an unpublished opinion (IBEW Pacific Coast Pension Fund v. Cleta B. Lee v. Lois A. Lee, No. 10-6433, 6th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3030). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2014%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 21 denied a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by cash balance pension plan participants asking the court to determine whether the Treasury Department's interpretation of its regulations on backloading from a "period of zero accruals" is entitled to deference and whether periods of "wear-away" are excepted from the Age Discrimination in Employment Act's (ADEA) protections (Wayne Tomlinson, et al. v. El Paso Corporation, et al., No. 11-795, U.S. Sup.; See January 2012, Page 7). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2015%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank CHICAGO - An Illinois federal judge on March 6 held that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act does not preempt a claim for promissory estoppel in a reimbursement dispute because the claim does not relate to an ERISA plan (The Oak Brook Surgical Centre v. Aetna Inc., et al., No. 10-5580, N.D. Ill.; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30480). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2016%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank CINCINNATI - The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 24 denied Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan's petition for leave to appeal an order certifying as a class action a case challenging the denial of autism benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (In re: Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, No. 11-0109, 6th Cir.). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2017%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank CHARLESTON, S.C. - A federal judge in South Carolina on March 2 granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a health insurance reimbursement dispute, saying that the plaintiff hospital, as a third-party beneficiary, did not have derivative standing to sue (Medical University Hospital Authority Medical Center of the Medical University of South Carolina v. Oceana Resorts, et al., No. 11-1522, D. S.C.; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27897). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2018%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank NEWARK, N.J. - A federal judge in New Jersey on Jan. 24 granted judgment on the pleadings for defendants involved in a class action reimbursement lawsuit against their insurer, a database company and the database's parent company, saying that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act preempted the plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claims (Darlery Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 07-6039, D. N.J.; See October 2011, Page 26). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2019%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank NEWARK, N.J. - A New Jersey federal judge on March 6 partially granted a plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint in a reimbursement dispute while denying the defendants' motion to dismiss as moot (Broad Street Surgical Center v. UnitedHealth Group Inc., et al., No. 11-2775, D. N.J.; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30466). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2020%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank NEW ORLEANS - The administrator of a life insurance policy did not abuse its discretion in denying accidental death benefits for death caused by an accidental overdose of prescription drugs under the policy's voluntary ingestion exclusion, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Feb. 6 in an unpublished opinion reversing summary judgment for the beneficiary (Stephen Keith Smith v. Life Insurance Company of North America, No. 11-30540, 5th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2354). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2021%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank CINCINNATI - An accidental death and dismemberment (ADD) insurance plan properly concluded that benefits for a participant's death caused by a pulmonary embolism were barred by the plan's exclusion of coverage of any loss caused by a "circulatory malfunction," the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed Feb. 17 in an unpublished opinion (Phillip Hernandez, et al. v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Company, No. 10-2377, 6th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3293). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2022%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank GREEN BAY, Wis. - A life insurance plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act is estopped from denying benefits because the employer's representative misrepresented that the insured did not need to apply for coverage upon his retirement; however, the insurer was entitled to summary judgment on the beneficiary's claim for benefits, a federal judge in Wisconsin ruled March 8 (Susan Kaye Winkelspecht v. Gustave A. Larson Company, et al., No. 10-C-1072, E.D. Wis.; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30729). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2023%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank DENVER - A 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals majority on Feb. 10th upheld dismissal of a life insurance policy's beneficiaries' claims, finding that benefits were properly denied under a policy exclusion that precluded coverage for accidental death caused by overdose of drugs prescribed by a doctor in the course of medical treatment (Kimberly Brimer, et al. v. Life Insurance Company of North America, No. 11-5032, 10th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2601). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2024%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank NEW ORLEANS - A disability claimant failed to demonstrate that the plan administrator acted under a conflict of interest sufficient to warrant a heightened standard of review of a denial of benefits determination under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed Feb. 27 in an unpublished opinion (John Jurasin v. GHS Property & Casualty Insurance Company, et al., No. 11-50500, 5th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2025%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank CHICAGO - The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 2 ruled that a plan administrator is entitled to offset its disability payments by benefits awarded to a claimants' dependent children by the Social Security Administration (Kathleen G. Schultz and Mary Kelly v. Aviall Incorporated Long Term Disability Plan, et al., No. 11-2889, 7th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4275). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2026%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank PHILADELPHIA - The Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 21 in an unpublished opinion upheld a grant of summary judgment to a plan administrator that terminated benefits to a claimant suffering from abdominal pain and chest discomfort, finding that the administrator did not abuse its discretion (Robert S. Conrad Sr. v. The Wachovia Group Long Term Disability Plan, No. 10-4684, 3rd Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3327). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2027%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank ATLANTA - The 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 21 ruled that a lower court's order remanding a claim for disability benefits to the plan administrator for further review is not "final and appealable" (Cheryl G. Young v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, No. 3:09-cv-01076, 11th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3387). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=10-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2028%20(2012)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target=_blank CLEVELAND - A pension plan sponsor is not entitled to discovery regarding the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.'s (PBGC) liability formula in downsizing cases, a federal judge in Ohio ruled Feb. 24 in an action brought by the PBGC to enforce its administrative decision imposing such liability (Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems, LLC, No. 1:11 CV 1961, N.D. Ohio; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24179).