Free Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 The court has before it plaintiff's motion to reinstate and stay plaintiff's action pending 17 remand to plan administrator (doc. 49), and defendants' response. 18 Our order filed on August 19, 2005 (doc. 40), granted the defendants' motion for 19 judgment on the administrative record. Indeed, our order stated "[w]e therefore grant 20 judgment in favor of defendants." This was on plaintiff's claim for continued benefits after 21 the twenty-four month period which was the subject matter of plaintiff's complaint (doc. 1). 22 Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the administrative record raised the additional 23 contention that he was underpaid during the initial twenty-four month period. Instead of 24 asking us to dismiss this part of the claim for having failed to exhaust administrative 25 remedies, defendants asked us to remand that issue to the claims administrator. In so doing, 26 it was not our intent to interfere with the finality of our disposition. We perhaps should have 27 dismissed that new claim without prejudice and certified our judgment in favor of the 28
Case 2:04-cv-00493-FJM Document 53 Filed 02/12/2007 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) HALLIBURTON COMPANY LONG-) ) TERM DISABILITY PLAN, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) DAVID L. MAZET

No. CV-04-0493-PHX-FJM ORDER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

defendants on plaintiff's claim with respect to the continuing denial of benefits under Rule 54(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. We thus think plaintiff was right the first time when he appealed to the Ninth Circuit from our judgment. Then we would have expected the plan administrator to have

simultaneously determined if plaintiff's pre-disability wages were properly determined and if he was underpaid during the initial twenty-four month period. Nevertheless, defendants had plaintiff's appeal dismissed and now plaintiff would like to have the plan administrator make its determination, after which plaintiff would like the opportunity to appeal not only that decision, if necessary, but this court's judgment granting defendants' motion for judgment on the administrative record with respect to the claim for continuing benefits. Defendants do not oppose plaintiff's proposed procedure. This is not surprising since defendants got plaintiff's appeal dismissed. Yet a review of the file in this case shows that the complaint reveals only defendants' claim for termination of plan benefits, and not for amounts for earlier erroneous calculations (doc. 1). So, too, the parties' joint proposed case management plan raised only the issue of termination of benefits, and not recalculation of earlier benefits (doc. 13). Plaintiff raised the issue of recalculation of earlier benefits for the first time in his motion for judgment (doc. 21), and not as a separate claim, but only as it may have had an effect on his claim for continuing benefits. ERISA cases are widely regarded as nightmares because of needless complexity and confusion. This case is no exception. Our order granting defendants judgment and yet remanding the case for recalculation at defendants' request only served to perpetuate the confusion. We should have either remanded the entire case to the plan administrator or declined the invitation to remand altogether so that plaintiff could perfect his appeal. Defendants having successfully obtained a dismissal of plaintiff's appeal for the lack of finality of this court's judgment, it is plain that this court's judgment is subject to revision at any time under Rule 54(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: -2Case 2:04-cv-00493-FJM Document 53 Filed 02/12/2007 Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1. This entire case is remanded to the plan administrator to determine if plaintiff's predisability wages were properly determined and if he was underpaid during the initial twentyfour month period. If the plan administrator decides that plaintiff was underpaid, then the plan administrator shall decide both the amount of that underpayment and its effect on plaintiff's claim to continued benefits. 2. Because this case is stale, the plan administrator shall make its determinations no later than May 4, 2007. 3. If the plan administrator fails to make its determinations by that date, this court will decide the entire case de novo. 4. This case is set for status conference on May 18, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. (doc. 49). DATED this 9th day of February, 2007.

-3Case 2:04-cv-00493-FJM Document 53 Filed 02/12/2007 Page 3 of 3