Employee Benefits

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in ERISA action by plaintiff-union pension benefit plan seeking to collect withdrawal liability from non-union defendant, which had purchased assets from entity that had previously participated/contributed to pension plan prior to going out of business. Record showed that plaintiff had sent notice of contingent withdrawal liability to entity, that said notice had been forwarded to defendant, and that entity had not either paid said withdrawal liability or timely sought arbitration of said issue. Moreover, defendant was liable for said withdrawal liability based on theory of successor liability, where: (1) notice of contingent withdrawal liability that had been forwarded to defendant satisfied any notice requirements for imposition of successor liability; (2) defendant was aware that entity had issues regarding entity’s unfunded pension liability during asset purchase negotiations; (3) entity’s failure to arbitrate any merits-based defense to assertion of withdrawal liability precluded defendant from doing so; and (4) defendant had opportunity to negotiate lower purchase price of assets based on any potential withdrawal liability claim. Fact that precise figure for withdrawal liability had not been established at time of asset purchase did not require different result.

Claimant, who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, endometriosis, major depression, irritable bowel syndrome and fibromyalgia, was entitled to reconsideration of her application for Social Security disability benefits, where ALJ gave incomplete/flawed hypothetical question to vocational expert that failed to include claimant’s mental limitations in areas of concentration, persistence and pace. Both hypothetical question posed to vocational expert and ALJ’s RFC assessment must incorporate all of claimant’s limitations supported by medical record. Fact that hypothetical used phrase that potential job was “free of fast paced production requirements, involving only simple work related decisions” did not require different result.

Record failed to support ALJ’s denial of claimant’s renewed application for SSI disability benefits under circumstances where claimant was intellectually disabled and also suffered from psychiatric ailments. Claimant had received SSI benefits that were discontinued upon claimant going to prison, and while ALJ found that claimant was capable of gainful employment in spite of claimant’s psychiatric abnormalities, ALJ misinterpreted significance of claimant’s relatively improving GAF scores when finding that claimant was recovering from his mental ailments. Fact that claimant could perform simple household chores did not translate to finding that claimant could perform gainful employment.

Record failed to support ALJ’s denial of claimant’s application for SSI disability benefits based on his pain associated with diabetic neuropathy and osteoarthritis. While ALJ did not find claimant credible with respect to his pain complaints associated with his diabetic neuropathy, ALJ improperly based said finding on claimant’s ability to feel 10-gram monofilament, where there was no medical evidence to suggest that said ability would contradict claimant’s pain complaints. Fact that claimant used medications sporadically did not require different result where ALJ had failed to inquire why claimant may not have been fully compliant with his medications. Moreover, ALJ wrongly evaluated significance of claimant’s ability to perform certain daily tasks.

Record contained sufficient evidence to support Bd.’s denial of plaintiff’s application for disability annuity under Railroad Retirement Act that was based on 2003 workplace injury, even though plaintiff claimed that pain in his back prevented him from working. While plaintiff’s treating physicians gave opinions indicating that plaintiff could not perform even sedentary work, Bd. could properly discount said opinions, where vocational consultant testified that plaintiff could perform variety of light or sedentary skilled jobs, and where objective medical evidence indicated that plaintiff’s pain improved with medicine, and that plaintiff had normal gait, muscle strength and sensation. Bd. could also discount plaintiff’s complaints of disabling pain, where plaintiff gave inconsistent statements regarding improvement he experienced with medicine, and where recent MRIs of plaintiff indicated no abnormalities.