Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Stanley J. GOLDEN, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Donald BARNETT, TRUSTEE OF the UMWA 1985 CONSTRUCTION WORKERS PENSION PLAN and Trustee of 1978 Retired Construction Workers Benefit Trust; William H. Howe, Trustee of the UMWA 1985 Retired Construction Workers Pension Plan and Trustee of 1978 Retired Construction Workers Benefit Trust, Defendants - Appellants.
Donald Barnett and William H. Howe, Trustees of the UMWA 1985 Retired Construction Workers Pension Plan and Trustees of 1978 Retired Construction Workers Benefit Trust (“Trustees”) appeal from the district court's order granting, in part, summary judgment in favor of Stanley J. Golden on his claim brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461 (2012), challenging the Trustees’ decision to terminate Golden's retirement benefits and retiree health care coverage.
The Trustees terminated Golden's retirement benefits after concluding that he held an ownership interest in his former employer, thereby disqualifying him from coverage. However, the district court, after applying the eight factors provided in Booth v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Assocs. Health & Welfare Plan, 201 F.3d 335, 342-43 (4th Cir. 2000), concluded that the Trustees’ decision was erroneous.
We have reviewed the record included on appeal, as well as the parties’ briefs, and we find no reversible error in the district court's judgment. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Golden v. Barnett, No. 5:17-cv-00118-JPB (N.D.W. Va. May 14, 2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-1665
Decided: December 07, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)