Employee Benefits

In action filed by plaintiff-pension fund to assess withdrawal liability on certain defendants based upon complete withdrawal of defendant-employer, which was otherwise obligated to make pension payments to plaintiff on behalf of certain employees, Dist. Ct. did not err in imposing joint and several liability on said defendants, after finding that defendants were under common control of owner of employer. Owner of employer had controlling interest in defendant CEOBEO, where record showed that owner had right to demand release of remaining 27% of CEOBEO stock held in escrow and had right to vote 100% of CEOBEO stock prior to date of employer’s withdrawal from pension fund. Moreover, all defendants could properly be classified as either trades or businesses for purposes of imposing withdrawal liability, since all defendants were engaged in for-profit enterprises ranging from management services to commercial equipment leasing activities. Fact that owner of employer spent very little personal time with said defendant companies did not transform said companies into passive investments, and thereby defeat any withdrawal liability assessment.

Record failed to support defendant-pension plan’s rationale for denying plaintiff-retiree’s request for $2,900 monthly pension benefit and for allowing plaintiff only $2,600 monthly benefit. Language of pension plan was ambiguous as to definition of “retirement date,” and plaintiff’s interpretation, which required that he cease both “covered employment,” as well as certain activities listed in plan in order to be deemed retired, was only reasonable interpretation of said term. Moreover, defendant failed to give adequate reason of its interpretation of “retirement date” that would deem plaintiff’s retirement at cessation of covered employment or cessation of activities listed in plan. As such plaintiff was entitled to greater amount of pension benefit based on his interpretation of plan’s language.

Record failed to contain sufficient evidence to support ALJ’s denial of claimant’s application for Disability Insurance Benefits based on impairments related to her stroke. While ALJ found that claimant could perform full range of light, unskilled work, remand was required since ALJ failed to adequately explain why claimant was not credible, and since ALJ failed to question claimant as to why she failed to seek medical treatment or fully comply with prescribed treatment. Moreover, ALJ improperly overlooked claimant’s favorable evidence when making RFC determination, which otherwise was not supported by substantial evidence. ALJ also posed inadequate hypothetical questions to vocational expert.

Record failed to support ALJ’s denial of claimant’s application for Social Security disability benefits, where claimant alleged that his psychotic disorder, as well as his obsessive compulsive disorder, moderately severe COPD and chronic bifrontal tension headaches prevented him from working. Remand was required because ALJ’s hypothetical question to VE failed to include all of claimant’s limitations, such as his limitations in concentration, persistence and pace so as to make accurate assessment of claimant’s ability to work. Moreover, ALJ failed to explain why one doctor’s assessment that plaintiff had only minimal impairment was accepted, where claimant had received many GAF scores indicating significant impairment. Record also contained evidence suggesting possibility that claimant qualified for finding of per se disability under Listing 12.03 for psychotic disorder.

Record failed to support ALJ’s denial of claimant’s application for Social Security disability benefits, where ALJ rejected agency’s examining physician to conclude that plaintiff could perform range of light work that was sufficient to defeat her claim. ALJ erred in rejecting claimant’s contention that she could perform only limited daily activities where ALJ found that said claims could not be objectively verified. Moreover, fact that claimant could provide assistance to her mother did not require different result. Also, ALJ did not provide valid explanation for discounting opinion of agency examining physician, and ALJ could not penalize claimant for not undergoing recommended surgery without determining claimant’s reason for not doing so.

Record failed to contain sufficient evidence to support ALJ’s finding that claimant seeking social security disability benefits was totally disabled as of November 2008, as opposed to earlier date due to variety of physical and psychological ailments. Although ALJ found that neither physical nor psychological ailments were disabling when considered in isolation, ALJ should have considered possibility that combination of all of said ailments could have rendered claimant disabled at earlier date. ALJ also failed to consider whether claimant’s edema, chronic pain or severe headaches rendered claimant disabled, and ALJ should have sua sponte questioned claimant as to nature and extent of her condition, even though claimant’s counsel did not want her to testify.