Courts strive to enforce the terms of benefit plans in order to ensure their efficient operation.However, there are times when the provisions of benefit plans make no sense under the circumstances; and Waskiewicz v. Unicare Life and Health Ins. Co., 2015 WL 5751585 (6th Cir. October 2, 2015) illustrates one of those circumstances. 

In Waskiewicz, a product design engineer for Fort Motor Company was unable to submit a timely claim for disability benefits due to her severe mental illness.  On account of the late submission, Ford’s claim administrator denied the claim, and a federal court upheld that denial.  However, a federal appellate court disagreed and ordered the plan to consider the claim.

The court found: “While [the plaintiff] did not comply with the notification deadlines outlined in Section 4.02 of the Plan, that failure is not surprising given that she was suffering from severe mental illness and was unable to comply due to the very disability for which she sought coverage.”The court thus deemed the denial “inconsistent with the spirit of employer-provided health care benefits generally and with this Plan specifically.” 

Although the court’s opinion was unsupported by citations to precedent, it was well-rooted in logic and common sense. It is encouraging to see a court give recognition to ERISA’s purpose and exercise its power to redress an obvious wrong.

Related Articles

The Importance of Judicial Standards of Review in ERISA Litigation

The Importance of Judicial Standards of Review in ERISA Litigation

Congress enacted the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) law to protect . . . participants in employee benefit plans and their beneficiaries, by requiring the disclosure and reporting to participants and beneficiaries of financial and other information with respect thereto, by establishing standards of conduct, responsibility, and obligation for fiduciaries of employee benefit plans, and by providing for appropriate remedies, sanctions, and ready access to the Federal Courts. […]

ERISA-Governed vs. Non-ERISA Group Benefits: Key Differences and Why They Matter

ERISA-Governed vs. Non-ERISA Group Benefits: Key Differences and Why They Matter

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) affects millions of Americans with employer-sponsored benefits, but most don’t know until a claim is denied. ERISA is an acronym for the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a law passed by Congress in 1974. The primary intent behind ERISA was to protect employees’ retirement benefits. [..]

ERISA Venue Provisions: Where Can You File Your Benefits Lawsuit?

ERISA Venue Provisions: Where Can You File Your Benefits Lawsuit?

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) governs private sector employee benefits plans, including retirement, disability, and health plans. One of the key aspects of ERISA litigation is the question of venue — where participants or beneficiaries file their lawsuits when they believe their plan rights are violated. […]