Employee Benefits

Record failed to support ALJ’s denial of applicant’s claim for Social Security disability benefits, where applicant, who had previously been declared to be 70 percent disabled and deemed “unemployable” by Dept. of Veterans Affairs, alleged that he could not work due to ankle injury, as well as back and knee pain. Applicant testified that he was incapacitated by pain for at least six days per month and could not sit for more than 15 minutes nor stand for more than 10 minutes, and ALJ improperly discounted such testimony based solely on perceived lack of diagnostic tests to support such pain complaints. ALJ also should have analyzed and weighed disability determination made by Dept. of Veterans Affairs.

Record failed to support ALJ’s denial of claimant’s application for Social Security disability benefits stemming from chronic back pain, cubital tunnel syndrome, somatoform disorder and various psychiatric disorders, where ALJ found that claimant was capable of doing unskilled light work. ALJ improperly discounted claimant’s pain testimony based on finding that said testimony could not be attributed to objective medical evidence, and record otherwise contained objective evidence of pain in form of claimant’s damaged ulnar nerve, corrective elbow surgery and scoliosis condition. Record also did not support ALJ’s observation that claimant was not believable because he did not seek treatment for his extreme symptoms.

Record contained sufficient evidence to support ALJ’s denial of claimant’s application for Social Security disability benefits based on claimant’s glaucoma condition. ALJ appropriately followed relevant 5-step analysis in finding that although claimant’s glaucoma condition in her right eye constituted severe impairment, her condition, according to her treating physicians, did not constitute impairment that met severity of listed impairments. Moreover, ALJ could properly conclude that claimant had residual functional capacity to perform full range of work at all exertion levels, and that claimant could perform her prior work as personal care worker. Ct., in reversing Dist. Ct.’s vacatur of ALJ’s decision, found that ALJ provided sufficient details to support his ruling, and that ALJ was not required to make credibility finding as to claimant's testimony at step 2 of process, where ALJ already found that claimant had established that she had severe impairment in her right eye.

Dist. Ct. erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in action seeking declaration that plaintiff-lender who acquired debtor/hotel in foreclosure action on defaulted loan, was not responsible for hotel’s multiemployer pension fund withdrawal liability pursuant to section 4201 of MPPAA, where hotel underwent Chapter 11 reorganization plan initiated by plaintiff. While Dist. Ct. properly found that defendant’s summary judgment motion could not be granted where defendant failed to present any evidence to establish that plaintiff was trade or business for purposes of imposing liability under MPPAA, Dist. Ct. erred in further finding that plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on trade or business status issue without giving defendant notice that it was considering entry of judgment in plaintiff’s favor on said issue. On remand, if Dist. Ct. finds that plaintiff is trade or business, it must further resolve whether certain provisions of hotel’s Chapter 11 reorganization plan barred defendant from pursuing any withdrawal liability claim against plaintiff.

Record failed to support ALJ’s denial of claimant’s application for Social Security disability benefits, where claimant alleged that his fibromyalgia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and degenerative disc disease prevented him from working. ALJ failed to adequately explain why claimant’s combined impairments did not meet criteria set forth in Listing 1.04 for spinal diseases, as well as ignored aspects of medical record that would have supported such finding. Moreover, ALJ used only boilerplate language in finding that claimant was not credible when describing intensity, persistence and limiting effects of his symptoms, and record otherwise contained objective medical evidence to support claimant’s subjective complaints. ALJ also failed to explain why claimant’s treating physician’s opinion was not supported by record.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in ERISA class action, alleging that defendant’s series of sales of its subsidiary companies (and its subsequent terminations of employees from said companies) resulted in “partial termination” of class members’ pension plan that in turn resulted in class members obtaining immediate full vesting of their pension benefits. Internal Revenue Service has employed rebuttable presumption that defines partial termination of pension plan as whenever employer reduces/terminates 20% or more of plan participants in its pension plan, and plaintiff’s class representative could show only 5% reduction in plan participants in year in which he was terminated. Moreover, record showed that defendant’s reductions/terminations of class members over three-year period amounted to only 17% of total participants, which was still below 20% threshold for obtaining partial termination treatment.

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in action alleging that defendant violated USERRA by pro-rating/reducing plaintiff’s longevity benefit by eight months plaintiff spent while serving in U.S. Air Force Reserves. Instant longevity benefit is seniority based benefit that required payment in full under USERRA. Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that longevity benefit was compensation for work done during prior year.

Dist. Ct. did not err in finding that defendant-employer was required to pay $375,000 in withdrawal liability, after defendant had withdrawn from plaintiff’s under-funded pension plan. Although defendant attempted to seek arbitration regarding amount of withdrawal liability it owed, defendant failed to give timely notice of its arbitration request to American Arbitration Association (AAA), which meant that defendant was required to pay withdrawal liability in amount established by plaintiff. Fact that other AAA provisions had not been approved by Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. did not excuse defendant from giving AAA timely notice of instant arbitration demand.