Justia U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Fleet Owners Fund is a multi-employer “welfare benefit plan” under the Employee Retirement Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001, and a “group health plan” under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), 26 U.S.C. 5000A. Superior Dairy contracted with Fleet for employee medical insurance; the Participation Agreement incorporated by reference a 2002 Agreement. In a purported class action, Superior and its employee alleged that, before entering into the Agreement, it received assurances from Fleet Owners and plan trustees, that the plan would comply in all respects with federal law, including ERISA and the ACA. Plaintiffs claim that, notwithstanding the ACA’s statutory requirement that all group health plans eliminate per-participant and per-beneficiary pecuniary caps for both annual and lifetime benefits, the plan maintains such restrictions and that Superior purchased supplemental health insurance benefits to fully cover its employees. Fleet argued that the plan is exempt from such requirements as a “grandfathered” plan. The district court dismissed the seven-count complaint. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, concluding that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring claims under ERISA and ACA, having failed to allege concrete injury, and did not allege specific false statements. View "Soehnlen v. Fleet Owners Insurance Fund" on Justia Law

Before accepting a transfer to a Bridgestone facility in North Carolina, Deschamps expressed concern about losing pension credit for his 10 years of employment with Bridgestone in Canada. After receiving assurances from Bridgestone’s management team that he would keep his pension credit, Deschamps accepted the position. For several years, Deschamps received written materials confirming that his date of service for pension purposes would be August 1983. He turned down employment with a competitor at a higher salary because of the purportedly higher pension benefits he would receive at Bridgestone. In 2010, Deschamps discovered that Bridgestone had changed his service date to August 1993, the date he began working at the American plant. After failed attempts to appeal this change through Bridgestone’s internal procedures, Deschamps filed suit, alleging equitable estoppel, breach of fiduciary duty, and an anti-cutback violation of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1054(g). The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Deschamps on all three claims. The text of the plan “is at worst ambiguous, but at best, favors Deschamps’s argument that he was a covered employee in 1983” and, as a result of the change in the interpretation of this provision that excluded foreign employees from being classified as covered employees, Deschamps’s benefits were decreased. View "Deschamps v. Bridgestone Americas, Inc." on Justia Law

Okuno was working as an art director with a clothing company when she developed symptoms including vertigo, extreme headaches, memory loss, and abdominal pain. Though she had previously been diagnosed with fibromyalgia and degenerative disc disease, Okuno contends that these maladies had been “stable and well-controlled” for years and did not prevent her from working. After visits to multiple specialists, numerous tests, and two visits to the emergency room, Okuno was eventually diagnosed with narcolepsy, Crohn’s disease, and Sjogren’s syndrome, an autoimmune disease. After diagnosis, she struggled with negative drug interactions and the side effects associated with her many treatments. Unable to continue working, Okuno went on short-term disability and applied for benefits under her employer’s long-term disability plan, issued and administrated by Reliance. Reliance denied the application on the basis that depression and anxiety contributed to Okuno’s disabling conditions. After exhausting her administrative appeals, Okuno brought a claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)(B). The district court found in favor of Reliance on cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record. The Sixth Circuit reversed, reasoning that her physical ailments, including Crohn’s disease, narcolepsy, and Sjogren’s syndrome, are disabling when considered apart from any mental component. View "Okuno v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Harrogate, a healthcare provider, participates in Blue Cross networks. Harrogate’s patients sign an “Assignment of Benefits,” allowing Harrogate to bill Blue Cross directly for services. The Provider Agreement allows Blue Cross to perform post-payment audits and recoup overpayments from Harrogate. Blue Cross paid Harrogate's claims for antigen leukocyte cellular antibody (ALCAT) tests, which purport to identify certain food allergies. Blue Cross claims that these tests have “little or no scientific rationale.” Investigational treatments are not “covered, compensable services” under Blue Cross’s Manual, which is incorporated by reference into the Provider Agreement. That Agreement also specifies that Harrogate may not “back-bill” patients for un-reimbursed, investigational treatments unless, before rendering such services, “the Provider has entered into a procedure-specific written agreement with the Member, which has advised the Member of his/her payment responsibilities.” Blue Cross began recouping ALCAT payments. Harrogate filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The district court dismissed, holding that Harrogate did not meet the statutory definition of “beneficiary” and had not received a valid assignment for the purpose of conferring derivative standing to bring suit under ERISA. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. While Harrogate had derivative standing through an assignment of benefits, its claim regarding recoupments falls outside the scope of that assignment. View "Brown v. BlueCross BlueShield of Tenn., Inc." on Justia Law

In 2011, Hogan sued the Life Insurance Company of North America for violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001, by denying her benefits claim under a disability insurance policy. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the grant of judgment against her. While appeal was pending, Hogan filed a state court suit against two nurses who worked for the Life Insurance Company and who had provided opinions regarding Hogan’s eligibility for benefits after reviewing her claim. Hogan carefully pleaded her claims in the second suit to avoid reference to the Life Insurance Company or ERISA, alleging only that the nurses committed negligence per se by giving medical advice without being licensed under Kentucky’s medical-licensure laws. The defendants removed the case to federal court on the basis of ERISA’s complete-preemptive effect. The district court denied Hogan’s attempts to remand the case to state court and later granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of remand and the dismissal. Hogan’s artfully pleaded state-law claims are simply claims for the wrongful denial of benefits under an ERISA plan that arise solely from the relationship created by that plan. The court denied defendants’ motion for sanctions on appeal because Hogan’s arguments were not frivolous. View "Hogan v. Jacobson" on Justia Law

During negotiations, Rubber Associates proposed to the Union that it decrease its contribution rate to the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Employer Pension Fund (governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001) from 62 cents per hour to 30 cents per hour. The Fund’s actuary opined that collecting withdrawal liability would result in a better funding status for the Fund than accepting reduced contributions. Rubber Associates agreed to maintain its previous contribution rate. Negotiations resumed without success. The Union authorized a strike, which lasted for 17 months. After the Union unilaterally disclaimed interest in representing its employees, Rubber Associates was deemed to have withdrawn from the Fund, pursuant to the Multiemployer Pension Protection Amendments Act (MPPAA). The Fund calculated Rubber Associates’ withdrawal liability obligation at $1,713,169, which the arbitrator awarded in full. The Fund sued to enforce the award. Rubber Associates counterclaimed that, because withdrawal from the Fund was union-mandated, its liability should be calculated by an alternate method, making its liability only $312,000. The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the counterclaim, declining to recognize a claim under the federal common law of ERISA for equitable relief in the case of union-mandated withdrawals. View "United Food & Commercial Workers v. Rubber Assocs., Inc." on Justia Law

Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001, plan fiduciaries have a duty of prudence that generally requires diversification. To “solve the dual problems of securing capital funds for necessary capital growth and of bringing about stock ownership by all corporate employees,” Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) are permitted to invest primarily in qualifying employer securities, rather than diversifying across securities of many companies. In 1995, the Third and Sixth Circuits adopted a presumption that an ESOP fiduciary’s decision to remain invested in employer securities is prudent. In 2008, GM faced severe business problems that resulted in its bankruptcy. GM employees, invested in the GM ESOP, sued State Bank, the fiduciary of the GM Common Stock Plan. That Plan lost money in 2008, but State declined to stop buying GM stock until November, 2008, and did not sell GM stock until March, 2009. In 2010, the district court dismissed, applying the presumption of prudence. In 2012, the Sixth Circuit remanded. After class certification, the district court, applying the presumption, granted State summary judgment. In the meantime, the Supreme Court abrogated the presumption altogether. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment, noting that during the relevant period, State’s managers repeatedly discussed whether to continue the GM investments, engaging in a “prudent process.” View "Pfeil v. State St. Bank & Trust Co." on Justia Law

In 2007, Durand filed an Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001–1461 (ERISA) class action against her former employer and the pension plan it sponsors, challenging the projection rate used by the Plan to calculate the lump-sum payment Durand elected to receive after ending her employment at the Company in 2003. The Plan then used a 401(k)-style investment menu to determine the interest earned by members’ hypothetical accounts. Durand alleged that it impermissibly used the 30-year Treasury bond rate instead of the projected rate of return on her investment selections in the “whipsaw” calculation required under pre-2006 law. The Sixth CIrcuit reversed dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Defendants then answered the complaint and raised defenses, including that the claims of putative class members “who received lump-sum distributions after December 31, 2003” were barred due to an amendment to the Plan that took effect after that date. Plaintiffs argued that the 2004 Amendment was an illegal reduction or “cutback” in benefits. The Sixth Circuit affirmed that the “cutback” claims were time-barred and did not relate back to the “whipsaw” claim asserted in the original class complaint. View "Durand v. Hanover Ins. Group, Inc." on Justia Law

Waskiewicsz suffers from type-1 diabetes, major depression, and gender identity disorder She worked as a product design engineer for Ford from 1990 until October, 2010, when she suffered “a debilitating emotional breakdown.” In December, after her father found her barricaded in her house, she sought long-term disability benefits under Ford’s Plan, governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001. Under the plan: An Active Employee whose employment is terminated . . . shall cease to be eligible for Benefits as of the earlier of: (a) the date the Employee has been notified; or (b) the day prior to the date of such termination (in the case of retroactive terminations) . .... An employee is required to notify the Claim Processor ... if the employee is absent for more than five (5) consecutive Workdays.” She did not give notice within the five-day period and was, apparently, terminated in the interim. UniCare concluded that she did not qualify for benefits. The Sixth Circuit reversed. On remand, Waskiewicz must be given the opportunity to show that her alleged failure to comply with the requirements of the Plan was due to the very disability for which she seeks benefits. View "Waskiewicz v. UniCare Life & Health Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The Iron Workers negotiated a contract that required JD Steel to make contributions, on behalf of its employees, to the pension funds for local unions in which the employees performed work, amounting $10.00 for every hour that a JD employee worked in the local union's territory. Later, the Iron Workers negotiated a similar contract with Davis Rebar, except that, rather than require contributions to the local unions’ pension funds, the contract required Davis to make identical contributions to the local unions’ defined-contribution plans, such as a 401(k) plan. In 2013, JD worked on a parking garage at Cleveland’s Fairview Hospital while Davis worked on a garage at University Hospital. Both jobs were within the territory of the Local 17 Iron Workers Union. Davis apparently used equipment bearing JD’s name and logo. The companies shared a foreman and supervisors. The pension plan sued under 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3), alleging that JD and Davis are actually the same company, so that Davis is bound by JD’s contract and must make additional payments. Each company has made all payments required by its individual contract. The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal. Reasoning that the same association of unions negotiated and signed both agreements, the court declined to set aside the association’s judgment regarding its members’ best interests. View "Bd. Trs. Local 17 Iron Workers Pension Fund v. Harris Davis Rebar LLC" on Justia Law