United States Sixth Circuit

In an ERISA suit brought by an employee seeking to enforce and clarify his rights under four employee benefit plans, a judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part, but reversed in part where: 1) defendant's interpretation of the plans' eligibility requirements was arbitrary and capricious; 2) a remand was required for a review of a plan's summary plan description (SPD) to determine whether it conflicts with that plan; and 3) defendant's claim of error regarding ERISA section 1022's disclosure obligations was meritless.

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/21/2007
• Published 06/21/2007

Judges

• Before:  MERRITT and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges;  GWIN, District Judge.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  James P. Baker, Jones Day, San Francisco, California, for Appellant.  Kerry D. Smith, McMurry & Livingston, Paducah, Kentucky, for Appellee.   ON BRIEF:  James P. Baker, Craig E. Stewart, Virginia H. Perkins, Jones Day, San Francisco, California, for Appellant.  Kerry D. Smith, McMurry & Livingston, Paducah, Kentucky, for Appellee.