FindLaw News

Case Summaries

ERISA

[11/07] Marrs v. Motorola, Inc.
In an ERISA class action, plaintiff-appellant's motion for leave to correct his notice of appeal to clarify that he was appealing in both his individual and representative capacities is denied where, under Fed. R. App. P. 3(c), failure to indicate that a class representative is appealing in his representative capacity stripped the court of jurisdiction to hear the arguments of the class.

[10/30] Oliver v. Coca Cola Co.
In light of controlling precedent in White v. Coca-Cola Co., which found defendant's interpretation of the offset provision to be reasonable and entitled to deference, the issue of damages is remanded for recalculation. All other previous rulings in Oliver v. Coca-Cola Co., 506 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) are affirmed.

[10/23] Leister v. Dovetail, Inc.
In a suit by an employee under ERISA to recover 401(k) contributions that defendant-employer allegedly promised but failed to make, judgment and award of damages to plaintiff and denial of statutory penalties are affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) plaintiff was entitled to relief under both breach-of-fiduciary-duty and recovery-of-benefits-owed claims; 2) the relief under the benefits-recovery claim was to consist of both the unpaid contributions and a reasonable estimate of their growth had they been timely deposited in plaintiff's 401(k) plan, and remand was necessary to recalculate the benefits owed; 3) a supplemental claim regarding failure to pay sales commissions was not an ERISA claim, but must be considered on remand as a supplemental state-law claim; and 4) the failure to grant statutory penalties must be reconsidered on remand in light of defendants' willful conduct and ability to pay.

[10/22] Orth v. Wisconsin State Employees Union, Council 24
In a suit under ERISA and the Taft-Hartley Act alleging that defendants violated the provisions of an ERISA plain contained in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the contract was clear on its face as to the percentage of plaintiff's health-insurance premiums the employer was to pay, and subsequent modifications to the CBA were not evidence of a latent ambiguity in the agreement; 2) the principle that contracts can be modified by the subsequent conduct of the parties is inapplicable to ERISA plans unless the conduct is proved by a writing; and 3) the award of attorneys' fees in an amount greater than the remedial award was proper.

[09/30] Golden Gate Rest. Ass'n v. City and County of San Francisco
In a challenge to municipally mandated employer health care spending requirements, summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed and the case remanded with instruction to enter summary judgment for defendant where the spending requirements are not preempted by ERISA because: 1) the spending requirements do not create an ERISA "plan" as defined by 29 U.S.C. section 1002(1); and 2) the spending requirements do not have an impermissible connection with employers' ERISA plans, or make impermissible reference to such plans.

More...

Elder Law

[11/12] James v. Richman
In a suit seeking Medicaid benefits, an injunction preventing defendant-Department of Public Welfare from denying benefits is affirmed where: 1) equitable relief was appropriate where plaintiff would be barred by the Eleventh Amendment from seeking monetary damages from the state; 2) plaintiff was not required to exhaust his state-level administrative remedies before seeking federal relief; and 3) a non-revocable, non-transferable annuity purchased by plaintiff's wife did not fit the statutory definition of an "available resource" for purposes of calculating Medicaid eligibility.

[10/23] People v. Slattery
Sentence of time in state prison and payment of restitution to the hospital that treated defendant's mother, for elder abuse, is stricken where the hospital is not a direct victim of the offense, as required by section 1202.4(k)(2).

[09/30] Wood v. Jamison
In a malpractice action brought by the trustee of 78-year old decedent for defendant-attorney's role in performing legal services for client who convinced decedent that he was her nephew, judgment for damages, attorney's fees and costs based on legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty and financial abuse of an elder is affirmed where: 1) defendant failed to advise decedent of a conflict of interest; 2) defendant failed to advise decedent the investment was not appropriate for her, or at least to refer her to an independent investment advisor; and 3) defendant obtained an undisclosed profit from the transaction.

[05/13] Cao v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
In an action wherein plaintiff sought recovery under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for alleged constitutional violations along with several state law causes of action after she was removed from her home, made to undergo a psychological evaluation, and placed in a state institution for the elderly, dismissal of plaintiff's complaint is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's section 1983 claim as untimely; and 2) with no federal cause of action remaining, the district court acted within its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.

[05/05] Miller v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
In a suit against American Airlines under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) a collective bargaining agreement did not require that plaintiffs be offered positions of comparable pay past the retirement age; 2) a claim, that a supplement to the collective bargaining agreement governing the retirement of flight engineers was facially discriminatory, was not properly raised before the EEOC.

More...

Government Benefits

[11/14] Feemster v. BSA Ltd. P'ship
In an action alleging that defendant-landlord unlawfully refused to accept Section 8 vouchers as payment for rent, summary judgment for tenants in part is affirmed, and for landlord in part is reversed, where: 1) federal housing law prevented landlord from unilaterally declaring that the units in question were no longer being offered for rental housing, but instead required that landlord meet the requirements of local law for making such a determination; and 2) the uncontested fact that landlord refused payment via voucher, while insisting it would accept cash, made out a facial violation of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act.

[11/12] US v. Kaufman
In a criminal matter involving defendants who had directed severely mentally ill residents of their treatment center to perform sexually explicit acts and farm labor in the nude, allegedly as psychotherapy, their convictions for forced labor and involuntary servitude are affirmed where: 1) even if the trial court plainly erred in ordering defendants to avoid eye contact with former residents who testified against them at trial, they failed to establish that the error affected their substantial rights; 2) there was no plain error in instructing the jury on the meaning of "labor" and "services" under statutes of conviction; and 3) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for involuntary servitude. However, on cross-appeal, defendant-wife's sentence is remanded for resentencing where it was procedurally unreasonable because: 1) the evidence supported applying certain enhancements, and the district court failed to make findings sufficient to justify its refusal to apply them; and 2) an obstruction of justice enhancement was supported by the record as well.

[11/12] James v. Richman
In a suit seeking Medicaid benefits, an injunction preventing defendant-Department of Public Welfare from denying benefits is affirmed where: 1) equitable relief was appropriate where plaintiff would be barred by the Eleventh Amendment from seeking monetary damages from the state; 2) plaintiff was not required to exhaust his state-level administrative remedies before seeking federal relief; and 3) a non-revocable, non-transferable annuity purchased by plaintiff's wife did not fit the statutory definition of an "available resource" for purposes of calculating Medicaid eligibility.

[11/06] Mouser v. Astrue
In a social security benefits case, an order denying remand and affirming a denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits is affirmed where: 1) there was no abuse of discretion in finding a lack of good cause to remand the case for consideration of new evidence pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 405(g); 2) the ALJ's credibility assessment was proper; and 3) the record was lacking in evidence that would have put the ALJ on notice that claimant's mental capacity could be at issue, and the ALJ fully and fairly developed the record based on the evidence before him.

[11/05] Vasquez v. Astrue
A ruling upholding a denial of Social Security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits is vacated and remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for a hearing on the issue of whether claimant was entitled to benefits where: 1) the ALJ erred in discrediting claimant's symptom testimony, and applying the credit-as-true rule, on remand the ALJ is instructed to accept her symptom testimony as true in determining whether she is entitled to benefits; and 2) for purposes of a finding of mental impairment, the ALJ should have been afforded an opportunity to consider additional evidence generated between the ALJ's decision and an Appeals Council hearing.

More...

Insurance Law

[11/19] Shady Grove Orthopedic Assoc. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
In a class action claim for statutory penalties under section 5106(a) of New York insurance law against defendant-Allstate Insurance Company, grant of motion to dismiss is affirmed where: 1) section 901(b) of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules may be applied in a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction and adjudicating claims under state law; and 2) section 5016(a) did not fall within the exception clause of section 901(b).

[11/18] Redmon v. Sud-Chemie Inc. Ret. Plan for Union Employees
In a claim for failure to pay plaintiff-wife survivor benefits due under her husband's retirement plan and for failing to provide her with plan information she requested, dismissal of plaintiff's claims where: 1) plaintiff did not submit a claim to defendant-retirement plan until 6.5 years after her claim accrued and 1.5 years after the applicable statute of limitations had expired; and 2) accordingly, plaintiff's claim was time-barred.

[11/18] Gagliano v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co.
In an action for disability benefits, a judgment that plaintiff-insured was entitled to benefits under a policy issued by defendant is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) defendant-insurance company violated Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA); however 2) the proper remedy was to remand the case to the plan administrator for a full and fair review.

[11/17] The Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. Holcim (US), Inc.
In a claim for contractual indemnification related to settlement of a tort claim, the court certified the following questions: 1) whether, under Alabama law, an indemnitee may enforce an indemnification provision and recover damages from an indemnitor resulting from the combined or concurrent fault or negligence of the indemnitee and indemnitor; and 2) whether, under Alabama law, a court may look behind (or beyond) the pleadings (in particular, the complaint) of an underlying tort action in determining the application of an indemnification provision between an indemnitor and indemnitee.

[11/14] Island View Resident Treatment Ctr. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc.
In an appeal by plaintiff-treatment center to recover from defendant-insurance company the cost of in-patient care furnished to a patient, summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed over claim that the district court erred in transferring the case to another state's district court.

More...