Employee Benefits

In ERISA action alleging that defendant-pension plan’s calculation of plaintiff’s pension benefit was too low, Dist. Ct. erred in awarding plaintiff his requested figure after finding that defendant’s calculation was arbitrary and capricious because defendant could not properly explain its calculation. While record suggested that defendant’s calculation was unreliable, plaintiff also failed to show that his requested amount comported with pension plan’s formula for calculating benefits. As such, because plaintiff could not demonstrate that his requested figure was only possible outcome from proper calculation process, remand to pension administrator was required for new benefit calculation, which would then be subject to another round of judicial review.

Record contained sufficient evidence to support ALJ’s denial of claimant’s application for Social Security disability benefits arising out of claim that removal of cyst on claimant’s brain resulted in chronic pain and numbness that precluded her from obtaining work. Although claimant testified that her pain was totally disabling, ALJ could discount such testimony, where claimant participated in long-distance foot races and had jogged one hour on daily basis. Moreover, fact that claimant had turned down specialized treatment for her pain supported view that claimant may have been exaggerating her symptoms.

Record failed to support ALJ’s denial of claimant’s application for Social Security disability benefits based on allegations that claimant suffered from depression and bipolar disorder, as well as chronic back and hip pain. Claimant had several “GAF” scores indicating existence of various degrees of mental illness, and ALJ made contradictory observations as to whether claimant was malingerer. Moreover, vocational expert, who believed that claimant could do simple sedentary work, failed to explain how he calculated number of available jobs in relevant job market. Also, ALJ failed to provide adequate reason for rejecting opinion of treating therapist, who found existence of mental illness that would require claimant to be absent from work for more than 4 days per month, which, in turn, would preclude claimant from obtaining gainful employment.

Defendant-City’s action in informing plaintiffs-retirees who received pension benefits that they would have to pay more for medical coverage (after 2003 ordinance providing free or subsidized health care benefits had expired in 2013) did not violate Contracts Clause of U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs failed to identify any action by defendant that prevented any implementation of contracts concerning health benefits, and plaintiffs could not show that expiration of subject ordinance constituted breach of any contract. Ct. also vacated Dist. Ct.’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ state-court claim alleging that defendant’s reduction of health care benefits violated Pension Clause of Illinois Constitution, where said decision came prior to Ill. Supreme Ct. decision in Kanerva, 2014 IL 115811, that found that Pension Clause applied to health benefits, and further remanded said action back to Dist. Ct. with directions to remand matter back to state court for resolution in that forum.