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=12-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%201%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on April 16 ruled that a health plan administrator's claim for reimbursement against a plan participant under Employee Retirement Income Security Act Section 502(a)(3) based on an equitable lien by agreement is governed by the terms of the plan and is not subject to equitable limitations (U.S. Airways, Inc. v. James McCutchen, et al., No. 11-1285, U.S. Sup.; See December 2012, Page 4). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=12-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%202%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on April 22 granted review of a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling regarding "appropriate equitable relief" under Section 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and vacated and remanded in light of the high court's recent ruling in U.S. Airways, Inc. v. James McCutchen, et al. (No. 11-1285 $(April 16, 2013$)) (CGI Technologies and Solutions, Inc. v. Rhonda Rose, et al., No. 12-240, U.S. Sup.; See July 2012, Page 4). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=12-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%203%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' CHICAGO - A profit-sharing plan's service provider did not become a plan fiduciary within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by limiting the mutual funds offered to the plan and, therefore, could not be found liable for its revenue-sharing arrangements with mutual funds, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed April 16 (Robert Leimkuehler v. American United Life Insurance Co., Nos. 12-1081, 12-1213, 12-2536, 7th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7528; See January 2012, Page 4). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=12-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%204%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' CHICAGO - Fiduciaries of an employee retirement savings plan did not breach their duty of prudence by complying with the terms of the plan by continuing to offer employer stock as an investment option during the stock's 54 percent decline in price, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed April 19, finding that the decline was consistent with the rest of the stock market and that the participants were given flexibility to direct their own investments among a variety of investment options (Linda White, et al. v. Marshall & Ilsley Corporation, et al., No. 11-2660, 7th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7831). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=12-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%205%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' SEATTLE - A federal judge in Washington on April 26 declined to dismiss claims that Morgan Stanley, a fiduciary of Weyerhaeuser Co.'s defined benefit pension plan, violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by investing in a large number of alternative investments that allegedly contributed to the plan's losing approximately $2.4 billion in 2008 (Michael Palmason v. Weyerhaeuser Company, et al., No. 2:11-cv-00695-RSL, W.D. Wash.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60161). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=12-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%206%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' SEATTLE - A health plan administrator did not breach its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by failing to modify its coverage certificates to reflect a court order that it provide mental health treatment because the administrator informed its members of the changes to its coverages of neurodevelopmental therapy mandated by the court's order, a federal judge in Washington ruled April 8 (Z.D., et al. v. Group Health Cooperative, et al., No. 2:11-cv-01119, W.D. Wash.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50402; See November 2012, Page 21). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=12-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%207%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on April 15 declined to review a Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that a nonfiduciary financial planner who marketed a tax avoidance scheme as a multiple-employer welfare arrangement (MEWA) to several employers is liable under Employee Retirement Income Security Act Section 502(a)(3) for knowingly participating in a prohibited transaction in connection with the MEWA (James W. Barrett v. Universal Mailing Service, Inc., et al., No. 12-975, U.S. Sup.; See April 2013, Page 15). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=12-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%208%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on April 15 agreed to review a Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals unpublished order upholding dismissal of a wrongful denial of disability benefits action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (Julie Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co., et al., No. 12-729, U.S. Sup.; See October 2012, Page 28). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=12-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%209%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' CHICAGO - An Illinois statute prohibiting discretionary clauses in insurance policies applies to a disability policy governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, where the policy was renewed and the insurer terminated the participant's disability benefits after the statute was adopted, a federal judge in Illinois ruled May 1 (Zaccone v. Standard Life Insurance Company, No. 10 CV 00033, N.D. Ill.). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=12-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2010%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' CINCINNATI - A Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals' divided ruling that a multiemployer plan did not abuse its discretion in applying a plan amendment retroactively to terminate disability benefits does not create a split in the circuit courts of appeals, the Sixth Circuit panel said April 22 in denying rehearing (James R. Price v. Board of Trustees of the Indiana Laborer's Pension Fund, et al., No. 11-4126, 6th Cir.; See March 2013, Page 29). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=12-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2011%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' ATLANTA - A disability plan insurer did not violate the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by terminating long-term disability benefits because the insurer reasonably relied on the opinions of an independent medical examiner and a vocational rehabilitation consultant, the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed April 29 in an unpublished opinion (Patricia Herring v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, No. 12-15864, 11th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8667). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=12-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2012%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on April 22 denied review of a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that the administrator of a plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act did not abuse its discretion by interpreting the plan's provision that disability benefits would be reduced by pension benefits "received" to include amounts rolled over into an individual retirement account (IRA) (David Day v. SBC $(AT&T$) Disability Income Plan, No. 12-1144, U.S. Sup.; See July 2012, Page 18). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=12-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2013%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' PHILADELPHIA - A federal judge properly imposed a $10 per day penalty on a former employer under the Comprehensive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 (COBRA) because the former employer was 293 days late in providing notice to its employee of her rights, even though the former employer mistakenly continued the employee's coverage after the termination of her employment, the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled April 10 in an unpublished opinion (Sarah Fama v. Design Assistance Corporation, et al., Nos. 12-2414, 12-2474, 3rd Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7225). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=12-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2014%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' ATLANTA - A plan insurer's calculation of benefits due to a participant for his out-of-network surgery was not wrong under the plan terms, and the insurer did not violate the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by failing to provide documents on which the insurer relied to calculate and verify the benefits due, the 11th Circuit affirmed April 22 (Brian Fox v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida Inc., No. 12-14569, 11th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7906). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=12-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2015%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' MEMPHIS, Tenn. - A health insurance plan administrator's denial of benefits was not arbitrary and capricious, even though the administrator gave three different reasons for the denial at different times in the administrative process, because substantial evidence supported one of the three proffered reasons, a federal judge in Tennessee ruled April 23 (Joseph M. Morrison, et al. v. Regions Financial Corporation, et al., No. 10-2843, W.D. Tenn.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57921). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=12-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2016%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' SAN FRANCISCO - A multiemployer plan did not violate its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by denying a participant's claim for medical benefits based on the plan's exclusion for injuries caused by third parties when the participant pursues or intends to pursue a claim against the third party, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed April 4 (Carl John Noecker v. Southern California Lumber Industry Welfare Fund, et al., No. 11-55593, 9th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6841). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=12-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2017%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' FLINT, Mich. - A federal judge in Michigan on May 3 declined to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds an employer's claim that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBS) violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by charging hidden fees that were not included in the parties' administrative service contract (ASC) (East Jordan Plastics, Inc., et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, No. 12-cv-15621, E.D. Mich.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63475). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=12-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2018%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' NEWARK, N.J. - A New Jersey federal judge on April 15 recused himself from a class action multidistrict litigation case involving a dispute over out-of-network reimbursement rates, saying he had a disqualifying interest in the case (In Re: Aetna UCR Litigation, Master File No. 07-3541, MDL 2020, D. N.J.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54864; See January 2013, Page 21). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=12-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2019%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' NEWARK, N.J. - A New Jersey federal judge on April 15 declined to recuse himself from a case in which health plan participants are suing a health care insurer for using flawed data to calculate the reimbursement rate for out-of-network providers (Darlery Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 07-6039, D. N.J.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54867; See February 2013, Page 20). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=12-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2020%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - A Puerto Rico law that requires retirement plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to disburse and pay plan assets corresponding to benefits accrued by certain employees to a government plan is preempted by ERISA, a federal judge in Puerto Rico ruled April 4 (Puerto Rico Telephone Company, Inc., et al. v. Sistema de Retiro de los Empleados del Gobierno y la Judicatura, et al. v. Maria M. Rivera, et al., No. 09-1085CCC, D. Puerto Rico; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56796). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=12-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2021%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' CINCINNATI - A pension plan administrator did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by determining that a participant elected to change the method by which his benefits were calculated, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed April 17 in an unpublished opinion (Terry Durbin v. Columbia Energy Group Pension Plan, No. 12-3910, 6th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7891). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=12-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2022%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' NEW YORK - A pension plan did not act arbitrarily and capriciously by applying the plan's break-in-service provision in calculating a participant's years of vesting service, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed April 17 in an unpublished order, concluding that the court's ruling in another case did not require a different result (Gannon v. NYSA-ILA Pension Trust Fund and Plan, et al., No. 12-2965, 2nd Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7733). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=12-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2023%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' PHILADELPHIA - A separation benefit that entitled an early-retirement eligible employee who was terminated as part of a reduction-in-force to the full amount that would have been payable if he retired at normal retirement age is an "early retirement subsidy for early retirement" within the meaning of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled April 9 in an unpublished opinion (Cheryl Ann Gruber v. PPL Retirement Plan, et al., No. 12-2123, 3rd Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7149). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=12-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2024%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' CHICAGO - The owner of a company that withdrew from a multiemployer plan is personally liable for the company's withdrawal liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, as amended by the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA), because the owner owned and leased property to the company and because the owner performed independent-contractor work for a country club, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled April 22 (Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, et al. v. Charles F. Nagy, No. 11-3055, 7th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7912). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=12-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2025%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' NEW ORLEANS - The Employee Retirement Income Security Act preempts state law claims by a beneficiary of a life insurance policy, which was converted to an individual policy, on her allegations that the insurer failed to pay the amount owed under the policy and the doctrines of estoppel and waiver did not apply, a federal judge in Louisiana ruled May 2 (Sankey v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. et al., No. 12-1135, E.D. La.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62964). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=12-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2026%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' PIKEVILLE, Ky. - Because a decedent's life insurance policy had been canceled prior to her death, a Kentucky federal judge on April 30 held that the policy beneficiaries' claims brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) failed (Sandra Morris, et al. v. Appalachian Regional Healthcare Inc., et al., No. 7:12-cv-00101, E.D. Ky.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61196). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=12-1%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2027%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on April 22 declined to review a Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that retired employees are not precluded from litigating for themselves the question of whether their health benefits had vested based on a judgment in favor of the employer in an action brought by unions (PPG Industries, Inc., et al. v. Patricia L. Amos, et al., No. 12-1089, U.S. Sup.; See December 2012, Page 30). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%201%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' NEW YORK - A disability insurer's counterclaim seeking return of overpaid benefits is an action for "appropriate equitable relief" properly brought under Employee Retirement Income Security Act Section 502(a)(3), the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled March 13 (Sharon Thurber v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, Nos. 12-370-cv, 12-521-cv, 2nd Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5022). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%202%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on March 25 declined to review an Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that a welfare benefit plan may not enforce its subrogation provision as an implied contract or in equity under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against a law firm that acknowledged the validity of the provision during its representation of a plan beneficiary in a civil lawsuit but that did not agree to be bound by the provision (Treasurer, Trustees of Drury Industries, Inc. Health Care Plan and Trust v. Sean Goding, et al., No. 12-982, U.S. Sup.; See September 2012, Page 10). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%203%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' SAN FRANCISCO - Fiduciaries of a 401(k) plan violated their duty of prudence under Employee Retirement Income Security Act Section 404(a) by including retail-class shares of three specific mutual funds in the plan menu without investigating the possibility of including the institutional share classes of those funds, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed March 21 (Glenn Tibble, et al. v. Edison International, et al., Nos. 10-56406, 10-56415, 9th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5598; See August 2010, Page 4). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%204%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' NEW YORK - Not-for-profit agencies breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by failing to increase contributions made to a multiemployer welfare benefits plan and by failing to collect overdue contributions from one of the contributing employers in order to satisfy a judgment against the plan in favor of a former participating employer, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed March 13 (L.I. Head Start Child Development Services, Inc., et al. v. Economic Opportunity Commission of Nassau County, Inc., et al., No. 12-2082, 2nd Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5060). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%205%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' NEW YORK - The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed 2-1 on April 2 that a pension plan failed to demonstrate that the plan administrator breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by purchasing and continuing to hold mortgage-backed securities as plan assets, concluding that a decline in the market price of mortgage-backed securities generally does not give rise to a reasonable inference that it was imprudent to purchase or hold them (Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, et al. v. Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc., No. 10-4497, 2nd Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6710). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%206%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' NEW YORK - A federal judge in New York on March 29 dismissed claims by participants in Pfizer Inc.'s retirement savings plans that the plan fiduciaries breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, finding that the participants failed to demonstrate that the plans' investment in company stock when the stock price was inflated was an abuse of discretion (In re Pfizer Inc. ERISA Litigation, No. 04 Civ. 10071, S.D. N.Y.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45868). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%207%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on March 25 invited the solicitor general to file a brief expressing the view of the United States regarding a petition seeking high court review of a Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that Fifth Third Bancorp and its employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) trustees breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by continuing to offer company stock as a retirement plan investment option at a time when the bank was engaged in subprime lending (Fifth Third Bancorp, et al. v. John Dudenhoeffer, et al., No. 12-751, U.S. Sup.; See March 2013, Page 14). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%208%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' NEW YORK - A federal judge in New York on March 27 refused to dismiss claims by a pension plan's trustees that JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (JPM) breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by continuing to hold the certain investments in Lehman Brothers as part of a securities lending program before Lehman declared bankruptcy (The Board of Trustees of the Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, No. 09-Civ-9333, S.D. N.Y.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43746). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%209%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals properly ruled that a nonfiduciary financial planner who marketed a tax avoidance scheme as a multiple-employer welfare arrangement (MEWA) to several employers is liable under Employee Retirement Income Security Act Section 502(a)(3) for knowingly participating in a prohibited transaction in connection with the MEWA, employers told the U.S. Supreme Court on March 11 in their opposition to the financial planner's petition for writ of certiorari (James W. Barrett v. Universal Mailing Service, Inc., et al., No. 12-975, U.S. Sup.; See March 2013, Page 16). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2010%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' RIVERSIDE, Calif. - Employee Retirement Income Security Act Section 410(a) does not void an indemnification agreement between an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) and its trustee where the agreement expressly prohibits indemnification if a court enters a final, nonappealable judgment finding the trustee liable for breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA, a federal court in California ruled March 15 in dismissing the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) claim (Seth D. Harris v. GreatBanc Trust Company, et al., No. EDCV12-1648, C.D. Calif.). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2011%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' GREENVILLE, S.C. - A federal judge in South Carolina on March 29 ruled that the anti-cutback provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act prevented a pension plan from enforcing an amendment that froze benefit accruals and eliminated a supplemental benefit payment to participants who elected to take early retirement, saying that the plan's plain language gave the participants the right to meet the eligibility requirements of the supplemental benefit (Noorali Sam Savani v. Washington Safety Management Solutions, LLC., et al., No. 1:06-cv-02805, D. S.C.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45233; See September 2012, Page 24). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2012%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' CINCINNATI - The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed on March 28 that retirees are entitled to additional pension benefits on their claims that the cash-balance pension plan miscalculated their lump-sum payments by failing to apply a whipsaw calculation but ruled that the lower court abused its discretion by mechanically applying the statutory rate for prejudgment interest (William J. Schumacher v. AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation Pension Plan, et al., Nos. 12-3061, 12-3063, 6th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6161). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2013%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' ST. LOUIS - A federal court lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction to consider arbitrability arising under a severance agreement, even though the severance benefits were measured by reference to plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, because the benefits were not due under an ERISA plan, the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed March 28 (Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation v. Kevin V. Schieffer, No. 12-1807, 8th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6188; See September 2011, Page 21). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2014%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' PORTLAND, Ore. - A health plan participant is not precluded from seeking judicial review of a denial of benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act based on review by an independent review organization (IRO) pursuant to state law because the review does not qualify as an arbitration that bars judicial review of claims under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), a federal judge in Oregon ruled March 8 (Kelly J. Yox v. Providence Health Plan, No. 12-1348, D. Ore.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32761). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2015%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' DETROIT - A health insurer arbitrarily and capriciously denied coverage for applied behavioral analysis (ABA) therapy for autism based on the plan's exclusion for experimental treatment under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a federal judge in Michigan ruled March 30 (Michael Potter v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, No. 10-14981, E.D. Mich.; See August 2011, Page 20). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2016%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' NEWARK, N.J. - A medical provider failed to demonstrate that health insurers violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by denying benefits for treatment on the basis that it was excluded from plan coverage as experimental, a federal judge in New Jersey ruled March 18 in an unpublished opinion (Montvale Surgical Center v. Coventry Health Care, et al., No. 12-6916, D. N.J.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37396). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2017%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Following remand from the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a federal judge in California on March 18 awarded a claimant benefits in a wrongful denial of benefits case at the rate for out-of-network providers, finding that no evidence produced by the claimant demonstrated that the plan agreed to any other payment (Jennifer Lukas, et al. v. United Behavioral Health, et al., No. 09-2423, E.D. Calif.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37252; See February 2013, Page 21). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2018%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' BOSTON - A disability insurer violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by offsetting a participant's payments under the plan by service-connected disability compensation under the Veterans' Benefits Act, the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed March 29, concluding that disability benefits under the Veterans' Benefits Act are significantly different from benefits under the Social Security Act (SSA) and the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) (David Hannington v. Sun Life and Health Insurance Company, No. 12-1085, 1st Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6515). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2019%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' CHICAGO - A multiemployer pension plan reasonably interpreted its definition of "total and permanent disability" in terminating a participant's disability benefits, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed March 13 (Donald Tompkins v. Central Laborers' Pension Fund, No. 12-1995, 7th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5161). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2020%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' CINCINNATI - The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 21 reversed a grant of summary judgment to a group disability insurer, finding that the insurer's reliance on a record review and a review by a vocational expert was arbitrary (James Neaton v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Co., No. 11-6061, 6th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5814). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2021%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' CINCINNATI - An insurer did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying a claim for total and permanent disability benefits, even though it recited an incorrect definition of disability in its initial denial letter, because it applied the correct definition during the administrative process, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 on March 25 (Thomas Judge v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, No. 12-1092, 6th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6710). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2022%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' NEW ORLEANS - A disability insurer did not abuse its discretion under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by determining that a traveling nurse's per diem allowance for meals and housing constituted a "fringe benefit" and, therefore, was excluded from her rate of pay when calculating her benefits due, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed March 11 in an unpublished opinion (Kathleen M. O'Brien v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Company, No. 12030641, 5th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4827). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2023%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' NEW ORLEANS - The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 2 upheld a grant of summary judgment to an ERISA-governed disability insurer that denied benefits to a claimant with back, neck and leg pain (Alan McFadden v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, et al., No. 12-60569, 5th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6571). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2024%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on April 1 denied review of a First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that the limitations period for filing a legal claim provided in a disability plan bars a participant's claim for reinstatement of benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (Luis Arturo Santaliz-Rios v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., No. 12-923, U.S. Sup.; See September 2012, Page 31). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2025%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' NEW YORK - Participants who challenged the amount of benefits due under a top-hat plan were not excused from exhausting administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed April 3 in an unpublished summary order (Daniel C. Quigley, et al. v. Citigroup Supplemental Plan for Shearson Transfers, et al., No. 12-613-cv, 2nd Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6659). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-12%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2026%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' CINCINNATI - A terminated employee failed to make out a prima facie case of interference with benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act because she did not demonstrate that she was terminated for the purpose of preventing her from receiving health benefits, the Sixth Circuit ruled April 3 in an unpublished opinion (Kristin Kepreos v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., et al., No. 11-4134, 6th Cir.). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%201%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' RICHMOND, Va. - A federal district court properly considered evidence outside the administrative record in its decision awarding retroactive benefits to a pension plan participant who claimed that she was not notified of an amendment making her eligible for full benefits at an earlier date, the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled March 6 (Francine Helton v. AT&T Inc., et al., No. 11-2153, 4th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4575). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%202%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' NEW ORLEANS - The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 19 ruled that surcharge is a potential remedy under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act Section 502(a)(3) for breach of fiduciary duty (Aaron Gearlds, Jr. v. Entergy Services, Incorporated, et al., No. 12-60461, 5th Cir.). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%203%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' RICHMOND - The Employee Retirement Income Security Act does not preempt a waiver provision in a property settlement agreement after the plan proceeds have been distributed by the administrator, the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed March 4 (Scott Andochick, M.D., v. Ronald Byrd, et al., No. 12-1728, 4th Cir.; See June 2012, Page 16). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%204%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' CINCINNATI - The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 26 in an unpublished opinion remanded a claim by a person seeking to be named a beneficiary of a retirement plan to the plan's administrative committee for a determination of whether the plan participant was furnished the summary plan description (SPD) that described the procedures for changing a beneficiary (Carol Liss v. Fidelity Employer Services Company, LLC, et al., No. 11-2124, 6th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4082). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%205%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' NEW YORK - The fiduciaries of an eligible individual account plan (EIAP) that permits investment in employer stock but does not require or "strongly encourage" such investments are not entitled to the presumption of prudence under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Feb. 27 in reversing in part a federal district court's dismissal of a stock-drop case against UBS AG and UBS Financial Services Inc. (collectively, UBS) (Debra Taveras, et al. v. UBS AG, et al., No. 12-1662, 2nd Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4061; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4016; See April 2011, Page 8). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%206%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' DURHAM, N.C. - Participants in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.'s 401(k) plan are not entitled to recover for breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act based on the removal of Nabisco stock from the plan following a spin-off, even though the plan failed to undertake an appropriate investigation into the prudence of removing the stock from the plan, because the decision to divest the plan of the stock was "objectively prudent," a federal judge in North Carolina ruled Feb. 25 (Richard G. Tatum v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., No. 1:02cv00373, M.D. N.C.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26045; See June 2011, Page 16). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%207%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' ATLANTA - The 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled March 5 in an unpublished opinion that although the Employee Retirement Income Security Act exempts the fiduciaries of eligible individual account plans (EIAPs) that acquire and hold employer securities from its diversification requirement, it does not exempt them from its prudence requirement (William B. Fisch, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., Nos. 11-11607, 11-11608, 11th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4476). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%208%20(2013)&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, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed March 6 in an unpublished opinion (Bruce Laboy v. Board of Trustees of Building Service 32 BJ SRSP, et al., No. 12-3401, 2nd Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4549; See March 2012, Page 9). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%209%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' WASHINGTON, D.C. - Participants in the Fifth Third Bankcorp employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) on Feb. 22 filed a brief opposing U.S. Supreme Court review of a Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that Fifth Third and the ESOP trustees breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by continuing to offer company stock as a retirement plan investment option at a time when the bank was engaged in subprime lending and by providing false and misleading information about the company stock to plan participants through intentionally incorporating the bank's filings with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission into the plan's summary plan description (SPD) (Fifth Third Bancorp, et al. v. John Dudenhoeffer, et al., No. 12-751, U.S. Sup.; See January 2013, Page 10). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2010%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' WASHINGTON, D.C. - A nonfiduciary financial planner who marketed a tax avoidance scheme as a multiple-employer welfare arrangement (MEWA) to several employers filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on Feb. 5, seeking review of a Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling finding that he is liable under Employee Retirement Income Security Act Section 502(a)(3) for knowingly participating in a prohibited transaction in connection with the MEWA (James W. Barrett v. Universal Mailing Service, Inc., et al., No. 12-975, U.S. Sup.; See December 2012, Page 15). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2011%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' CHICAGO - Retirement plans did not violate the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by retroactively modifying the discount rates used to calculate lump-sum payouts, rather than using the discount rates in effect at the time of the participants' termination of employment, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed March 6 (John J. Dennison v. MONY Life Retirement Income Security Plan for Employees, et al., No. 12-2407, 7th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4651). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2012%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 19 denied review of a Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that a cash balance pension plan sponsored by Bank of America Corp. did not unlawfully calculate participants' lump-sum benefits or violate anti-backloading provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by defining "normal retirement age" (NRA) as five years of vesting service (David L. McCorkle, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., No. 12-700, U.S. Sup.; See August 2012, Page 15). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2013%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' CINCINNATI - The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 4 affirmed in an unpublished opinion that a health insurer did not err in denying coverage for the treatment of eating disorders (Mark Brigolin, et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, No. 11-1525, 6th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4679). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2014%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' NEWARK, N.J. - A federal judge in New Jersey on Feb. 25 in an unpublished opinion granted a health insurer's motion to dismiss a reimbursement suit against it, saying that the assignment the plaintiff hospital received was insufficient to confer standing on the provider under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (MHA LLC v. Aetna Health Inc., No. 12-2984, D.N.J.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25743). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2015%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' NEWARK, N.J. - A medical provider lacked standing under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to bring a reimbursement lawsuit against a welfare benefit fund because it lacked a valid assignment, a federal judge in New Jersey ruled Feb. 28 in an unpublished opinion granting the fund's motion to dismiss (Middlesex Surgery Center v. Horizon, et al., No. 13-112, D. N.J.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27542). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2016%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' PHILADELPHIA - A participant in a multiemployer welfare plan on Feb. 11 sued the plan and his employer, alleging that the plan's refusal to cover his same-sex spouse violated the terms of the plan and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (Bryce Ginther, et al. v. Steelworkers Health and Welfare Plan, et al., No. 2:13-cv-00742, E.D. Pa.). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2017%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on March 4 denied a health plan's petition seeking review of a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that the plan, which is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, waived its right to assert medical necessity as a reason for denial of benefits (California Physicians' Service v. Jeanene Harlick, No. 12-457, U.S.; See February 2013, Page 18). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2018%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 19 denied review of a Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that a plan administrator's denial of coverage for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) testing and therapy as not being covered by the plan was not arbitrary and capricious (Jeffrey J. Christoff, et al. v. Ohio Northern University Employee Benefit Plan, No. 12-728, U.S. Sup.; See February 2013, Page 22). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2019%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' ST. LOUIS - The Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 13 ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a 401(k) plan trustee's appeal of a district court's denial of class certification of claims that the plan's service provider violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (Joseph Ruppert v. Principal Life Insurance Company, No. 11-2554, 8th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2946). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2020%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' CINCINNATI - The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 on Feb. 15 that a multiemployer plan did not abuse its discretion in applying a plan amendment retroactively to terminate disability benefits (James R. Price v. Board of Trustees of the Indiana Laborer's Pension Fund, et al., No. 11-4126, 6th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3211; See February 2011, Page 16). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2021%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' NEW YORK - A federal district court properly held that a pension plan did not violate the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by denying disability benefits, even though the district court relied on a plan provision that the plan failed to invoke in its denial notice, because the district court relied on an eligibility requirement, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed Feb. 21 in an unpublished order (Edward McCormack v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry, et al., No. 12-641, 2nd Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3627). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2022%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' DENVER - The 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 27 affirmed a disability insurer's calculation of long-term disability (LTD) benefits but reversed the insurer's calculation of short-term disability (STD) benefits (Jose Cardoza v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Co., No. 12-2033, 10th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4060). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2023%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 19 denied review of a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals' 2-1 ruling that a disability plan insurer may not enforce an equitable lien under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against a beneficiary who agreed to reimburse the plan for any benefit overpayment if the funds are no longer in the beneficiary's possession (First Unum Life Insurance Company v. Leah Bilyeu, et al., No. 12-526, U.S. Sup.; See February 2013, Page 13). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2024%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' NEW ORLEANS - The U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 19 denied review of a Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that a plan administrator that refused to classify a disability as "football degenerative" to allow for an award of higher benefits did not abuse its discretion under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (Gene Atkins v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan, et al., No. 12-718, U.S. Sup.; See October 2012, Page 26). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2025%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 25 denied a health insurance company's petition seeking review of a Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act does not preempt a third-party medical device provider's state law claims for negligent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel and violations of the Texas Insurance Code (United Healthcare Insurance Co. v. Access Mediquip, No. 12-806, U.S. Sup.; See January 2013, Page 16). http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&keyenum=25271&keytnum=0&searchtype=get&search=11-11%20Mealey%27s%20Litig.%20Rep.%20ERISA%2026%20(2013)&view=full&ORIGINATION_CODE=00144 target='_blank' WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 19 denied review of a Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals 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. 12-306, U.S. Sup.; See May 2012, Page 10).