Employee Benefits

Dist. Ct. did not err in entering judgment in favor of defendant-employer in action by plaintiffs- former employees alleging that defendant violated section 510 of ERISA by terminating them through spin off of one of defendant’s divisions and creating separate company that in turn re-hired plaintiffs, where said spin off, along with defendant’s policy of not re-hiring plaintiffs for period of time, had improper effect of ridding defendant of unwanted pension liability to plaintiffs. Record supported Dist. Ct.’s determination that employee pension benefits played no role in decision to spin off division and create separate company, and defendant presented evidence to support notion that no re-hire policy was put into place to prevent plaintiffs from obtaining both pension from defendant as well as full salary from new company for doing same job that they performed prior to reorganization. Moreover, plaintiffs failed to establish breach of fiduciary duty claim where record showed that defendant truthfully reported to plaintiffs that their pension benefits might change after reorganization.

Record failed to support ALJ's denial of claimant's application for social security disability benefits where claimant suffered from severe headaches, as well as severe back pain that, according to claimant, prevented her from doing more that sitting for 1.5 hours, standing for 1 hour and walking for .5 hours during 8-hour shift. ALJ neglected to provide specific evidence to support finding that claimant's pain complaints were not credible and also ignored treating physician's opinion that headaches were essentially untreatable except to give powerful drugs that would prevent claimant from working. ALJ also failed to establish evidentiary bridge to support conclusion that claimant could work full-time in sedentary occupation.

Record failed to support ALJ's denial of application of SSI benefits based on claimant's bipolar disorder and various physical ailments arising out of car accident. While ALJ found that claimant retained residual functional capacity to engage in light and sedentary unskilled work, ALJ failed to sufficiently explain his rejection of contrary opinion of treating physician or explain why he found two-year-old opinions of other physicians to be more persuasive. Moreover, claimant's participation in brief, part-time employment did not support ALJ conclusion that claimant was able to work full-time job. ALJ also failed to provide vocational expert with accurate list of claimant's deficits in areas of concentration, persistence and pace prior to expert making determination of claimant's ability to perform work in national economy.

Record failed to support ALJ's decision to partially deny claimant's request for disability benefits as of date claimant had returned to full-time position. ALJ had failed to credit claimant's entitlement to nine-month trial work period when making determination that limited claimant's benefits. On remand, ALJ must consider whether claimant engaged in substantial gainful activity after completion of trial work period.