Law Office of James D. Oswald
Home
Attorney Profile
Practice Area Overview
Employee Benefits
Disability Insurance
Retirement Plans
Life & Medical Insurance
Representative Cases
Employee Benefits Issues
Resources
Contact Us
News

Dynamic Content

News

Benefits and Compensation

[03/10] Senate to pass jobless aid, business tax breaks
[03/09] Senate to take up unemployment insurance extension
[03/08] Allergan CEO got $11.1M in compensation in 2009

More...

Top Headlines

[03/10] Feds probe Toyota Prius crash in NYC suburb
[03/10] DC courthouse busy with same-sex applications
[03/10] 'Jihad Jane' indictment shows terror's evolution

More...


Articles

No Articles

Case Summaries

ERISA

[03/10] Darvell v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am.
In an ERISA action regarding defendant-insurer's denial of long-term disability benefits to plaintiff, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) it was not an abuse of an ERISA plan administrator's discretion to ignore an opinion when the physician did not provide reliable objective evidence of testing or other proof to support a finding of long term disability; and 2) the plan administrator did not abuse its discretion by using the DOT description of plaintiff's occupation, rather than a description of his actual job duties.

[03/01] Jones v. Unum Provident Corp.
In an action under ERISA for wrongful denial of benefits, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) defendant thoroughly investigated plaintiff's claim, both initially and when plaintiff appealed, and its initial and final decisions were carefully reasoned; and 2) coverage under the policy at issue lapsed more than six weeks prior to plaintiff's return to full-time work, and thus her later disability claim was not covered because of a pre-existing condition clause.

[02/26] Overby v. Nat'l Ass'n of Letter Carriers
In an action seeking a declaration that a purported amendment to a trust plan, which would have rendered plaintiff ineligible to receive benefits under the plan as a surviving spouse, was not properly adopted, judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where the district court committed no reversible error in either its factual determinations or in its conclusions of law in finding that the trustees of the plan had not submitted the amendment to the fund's actuaries for an evaluation and estimate of its cost, as required by the governing provisions of the plan, and therefore the amendment was not properly adopted.

More...

FAQs

No FAQ Articles


The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.

Copyright © 2010 by Law Office of James D. Oswald. All rights reserved. You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution. All copies must include this copyright statement.