EBIS Search Results
To order copies of these articles, use the online order form or contact the Document Delivery Service at bookstore@ifebp.org or (888) 334-3327, option 4.
These executive summaries were compiled from EMPLOYEE BENEFITS INFOSOURCE database, a source for information on employee benefits and human resources.
Other Recent Decisions.
Benefits & Compensation Legal & Legislative Reporter; v42 no12 pp 15-16 Dec 2008; journal article
Availability :
International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans
Abstract :
In the case of Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc. et al., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that while the plaintiff could assert a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, he could not prosecute ERISA claims pro se on behalf of a plan. In Frulla v. CRA Holdings Inc. et al., the Eleventh Circuit reversed a lower court ruling that the defendant was not violating an agreed judgment by charging a contribution for retiree health benefits. The appeals court ruled the required contribution violated the agreement that the defendant would provide the plaintiffs with the same health insurance benefits for life. The Seventh Circuit ruled in Tate v. Long Term Disability Plan for Salaried Employees of Champion International Corporation #506 to uphold a district court ruling that the defendant's denial of total disability benefits was arbitrary and capricious because the reviewing physicians' assertions were unsupported by facts.
[0155189]
Plan Administrator Reasonably Applied Offset and Recoupment Provisions.
Benefits & Compensation Legal & Legislative Reporter; v42 no12 pp 2, 4 Dec 2008; journal article
Availability :
International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans
Abstract :
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of White et al. v. The Coca-Cola Company that a plan administrator was reasonable in deciding to reduce participants' long term disability benefits based on their receipt of Social Security disability benefits. The plaintiffs were collecting disability through the defendants' plan when they became eligible for retroactive Social Security disability benefits. The plan's claims administrators offset the plan's benefits and began recoupment procedures under the plan's provisions. The Eleventh Circuit upheld a district court decision granting summary judgment to the defendant.
[0155181]
Supreme Court Rules on Age Discrimination and Early Retirement Eligibility.
Moran, Anne E.; Employee Relations Law Journal; v34 no3 pp 93-97 Winter 2008; journal article
Availability :
International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans
Abstract :
In Kentucky Retirement Systems v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the pension system's method of calculating disability benefits was not age discriminatory. Under the plan, those working in hazardous positions who complete 20 years of service but retire with a disability before age 55 are credited with extra imputed years of service. An employee became disabled and retired at age 61 but received no imputed service credit, though a younger employee without 20 service years would get credit. The Supreme Court majority found the rule did not use age as its rationale but only as its basis for calculation. Dissenters maintained the employer must have a clear defense that age is not central to the pension and warned of further litigation over the issue.
[0155316]
Absorbing the Cost of Absence.
Tavella, Carol; Risk & Insurance; v19 no14 pp 74-75 Nov 2008; journal article
Availability :
International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans
Abstract :
Small and midsize operations have much to gain from outsourcing an integrated program for handling absence. Employers can start by collecting all data on employee absences available and review health plan information to reveal the most costly diagnostic categories. Data analysis can pinpoint major absence drivers and relate this to health risk assessment data. Comparison with similar companies is also informative. Claims adjudication should follow clear definitions and rules. Using a professional firm for claims management should be a cooperative effort and can save up to 15 percent.
[0155229]
Court Affirms Dismissal of Retaliatory Discharge Claim.
Benefits & Compensation Legal & Legislative Reporter; v42 no11 pp 9, 12 Nov 2008; journal article
Availability :
International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans
Abstract :
In Kouvchinov v. Parametric Technology Corp. et al., the plaintiff sought action against a former employer after he was found to be double dipping into that employer's short term disability benefits while employed with a second company doing business with the first. The defendant investigated the simultaneous employment, terminated benefits and advised the other employer. The plaintiff claimed wrongful termination tied to taking disability benefits, discrimination and interference with employment rights. The First Circuit Appeals Court upheld the district court's granting summary judgment for the defendant. The court found the defendant was justified in investigating the plaintiff's actions and there was no evidence of discrimination or malice.
[0155088]