Employee Benefits

Dist. Ct. did not err in certifying for class action treatment under Rule 23(b)(2) claims of 4,000 participants in defendant’s pension plan where participants sought declaration that defendant violated ERISA by failing to give them credit for all pension benefits to which they were entitled. Dist. Ct. properly certified 10 different sub-classes based on participants' status as either early retiree or normal retiree, as well individual taking annuity or lump sum payment, and record showed that each sub-class satisfied homogenous requirement under Rule 23(b)(2), even though issues among sub-classes overlapped. Ct. further rejected defendant’s claim that proposed class action lacked commonality and further observed that instant class-action could be turned into Rule23(b)(3) class action requiring notice to members, as well as ability of members to opt out, should additional determination of monetary relief be required.

Dist. Ct. did not err in entering judgment in favor of plaintiff in ERISA action alleging that defendant-insurance company wrongfully terminated plaintiff’s long-term insurance benefits even though Social Security Administration (SSA) had found that plaintiff was disabled under SSA standards. Record showed that defendant operated under conflict of interest where it both insured and administered instant long-term disability plan, and any variation in disability standards between SSA and plan was too slight to justify different results. Moreover, defendant failed to account for plaintiff’s four surgeries and his continuous need for narcotic drugs when relying on report from non-treating physician to deny benefits. Defendant also failed to explain why it supported plaintiff’s successful disability claim before SSA in order to recoup benefits already paid to plaintiff and then denied him any future payments under plan.

Record failed to support ALJ’s denial of claimant’s application for Social Security benefits based on claimant’s degenerative disc disorder. While ALJ found that claimant’s impairments, although severe, did not meet listed requirements for presumptive disabling condition, remand was required because ALJ did not adequately explain why claimant had not met such requirements. Moreover, Ct. noted that record contained evidence that claimant had spine-related lack of range-of-motion, as well as muscle atrophy that would support finding of presumptive disability, and ALJ could not just ignore such evidence when rendering ruling.