Employee Benefits

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in instant ERISA action by plaintiff-profit-sharing 401(k) plan, alleging that defendant, which provided investment, record-keeping and administrative services to instant 401(k) plan, breached fiduciary duty to plan by failing to disclose defendant’s revenue sharing practices with mutual funds. Defendant was not named fiduciary of plan, and Dist. Ct. could properly conclude that defendant did not owe any fiduciary duty to plan with respect to its revenue sharing practices, because it was not “functional fiduciary” within meaning of 29 USC section 1002(21)(A). Fact that defendant offered plan participants menu of mutual funds and other investment opportunities and held right to substitute selected funds did not render defendant as functional fiduciary. Moreover, plaintiff did not otherwise establish that defendant mismanaged its separate account, which contained plan participants’ contributions.

Record contained sufficient evidence to support ALJ’s denial of SSDI benefits, even though claimant asserted that several physical and mental impairments affected her ability to work. ALJ could properly find that although claimant’s combination of impairments, including degenerative disc disease, sciatica, obesity, hypertension, hyperglycemia, hyperthyroidism, vision problems and asthma was severe, none of her conditions met or equaled impairment under 20 CFR sections 404.1520(d), 404.1525 or 404.1526, and that claimant had residual functional capacity to perform light work. Ct. rejected claimant’s contention that ALJ failed to explain how medical and other evidence supported his conclusions or why he believed that claimant was not fully credible. Moreover, while ALJ erred in failing to follow “special technique” procedure used to evaluate claimant’s mental limitations, any error was harmless since ALJ provided sufficient information to support ultimate conclusion that claimant’s depression was not severe.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-pension plan’s motion for summary judgment in ERISA action alleging that defendant wrongfully terminated plaintiff’s disability benefits based on its interpretation of “total and permanent disability” phrase in plan that, according to defendant, required termination of benefits whenever beneficiary obtained full-time employment. Plaintiff eventually became employed full-time in 2005 in 40 hour per week job and earned $10,550 that year and $22,100 in 2006. Although plan allowed plaintiff to earn up to $14,000 per calendar year and still be considered totally and permanently disabled, defendant did not act arbitrarily in finding that plaintiff was ineligible for benefits at time he began full-time employment in 2005 since plan’s definition of total and permanent disability was ambiguous, such that defendant could find that $14,000 provision applied only to beneficiaries employed on part-time basis. Ct. also rejected plaintiff’s claim that defendant breached fiduciary duty by failing to provide plaintiff with certain plan documents, where said documents did not pertain to disability benefits.

Dist. Ct. did not err in affirming defendant-pension plan’s issuance of lump sum pension benefits based on “segment” discount rate of 5.24 percent for its tax-qualified defined benefits pension plan, as well as 7.5 percent rate for its excess benefit plan. While plaintiffs argued that more appropriate discount rate for both plans was 3 percent as computed by Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., instant rates used by defendant were permissible under Pension Protection Act. Moreover, plan allowed defendant to retroactively change discount rates, where, as here, plaintiffs chose lump sum distribution in preference to annuity.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-pension plan’s motion for summary judgment in ERISA action alleging that defendant improperly denied plaintiffs severance pay after announcing that plant would close and after initially offering said pay pursuant to company plan that provided for severance pay when its employees were involuntarily terminated. Record showed that prior to plaintiffs giving defendant required signed release forms, defendant told plaintiffs that they were not accepting any more releases at that time because plant would close at later date, and that plaintiffs’ subsequent decision to leave employment on or near original closing date meant that plaintiffs’ terminations were “voluntary,” which in turn disqualified plaintiffs from receiving severance benefits under plan.

Record failed to contain sufficient evidence to support ALJ’s denial of claimant’s application for Social Security disability benefits based upon her degenerative disc disease. While ALJ found that claimant could perform sedentary jobs, ALJ failed to explain why he rejected contrary opinion from claimant’s treating physician, especially where said opinion regarding claimant’s pain was supported by tests given to claimant. Fact that claimant attempted to work full-time after treating physician provided her with six-hour per day restriction did not require different result. ALJ also improperly gave claimant negative credibility finding based on her failure to seek medical treatment after 2006 or fact that she was able to perform household chores.

Record failed to contain sufficient evidence to support IJ’s denial of claimant’s application for social security disability benefits based on claimant’s adhesive capsulitis condition that caused her shoulders and arms to become weak and unable to lift objects weighing over 10 pounds, as well as claimant’s chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. ALJ failed to explain why he ignored medical opinion of expert whom ALJ had assigned to obtain more information about claimant and further neglected to explain why claimant could perform her prior job as hotel clerk that required her to lift coffee urn weighing up to 30 pounds. Record also failed to support ALJ finding that claimant could stand for six hours in eight-hour workday, and ALJ gave too much emphasis on fact that claimant could perform certain household chores.