Congress authorized claimants seeking employee benefits due under ERISA to bring a ‘civil action’ to recover benefits due or obtain appropriate equitable relief. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplate only one form of civil action; and civil actions are to be adjudicated utilizing the procedures specified by the civil procedure Rules and by the Federal Rules of Evidence. Yet federal courts have denied ERISA benefit claimants the right to take discovery normally permitted in civil actions, the right to trial by jury, and even, in most cases, the right to a trial in open court involving the examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Mark DeBofsky’s article explores how the courts developed a quasi-administrative law regime governing ERISA benefit disputes despite Supreme Court rulings defining the contours of what a ‘civil action’ should consist of. The article further examines how ERISA cases are litigated and the scope of ERISA adjudications. Questions as to whether the current regime for litigating ERISA cases violates claimants¹ Constitutional due process rights are also raised, along with a discussion as to whether remands of ERISA cases violate the finality rule of Article III of the U.S.
Constitution.

An advance copy of the article has been uploaded to the Social Science Research Network and is available at
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2385710

Other articles by Mark DeBofsky are available at SSRN at
http://ssrn.com/author=339786

Related Articles

Severance Pact Forecloses Right To Pursue Disability Claim Later

Severance Pact Forecloses Right To Pursue Disability Claim Later

Lawyers who represent employees in severance negotiations should be aware and take heed of the recent New York federal court ruling in Schuyler v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 2023 WL 2388757 (S.D. N.Y., March 7, 2023). That case illustrated a dangerous pitfall that may unwittingly result in unintended unfortunate consequences based on the court’s finding that an employee’s release of her employer also waived the employee’s right to sue her disability insurer. […]

The Important Role Of Contra Proferentem In ERISA Cases

The Important Role Of Contra Proferentem In ERISA Cases

The outcome of Employee Retirement Income Security Act cases often turns on how courts interpret the meaning of specific benefit plan terms. The recently decided case of Stein v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Company, issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 16, illustrates what happens when plan terms are unclear and can have different meanings. […]

Courts Should Follow 8th Circ. On ERISA Procedure Rules

There is no provision in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 mandating that claimants must exhaust internal appeals as a precondition to filing a lawsuit to challenge a claim denial. Nonetheless, most courts have required claimants to exhaust prelitigation appeals before their cases may be heard in court. […]