Carlo Torimino v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Industry Pension Fund

Eighth Circuit

Carlo Torimino v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Industry Pension Fund

712 F.2d 882, 4 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1903, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 25066

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedAugust 9, 1983

Docket82-2249

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 712 F.2d 882 (Carlo Torimino v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Industry Pension Fund) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carlo Torimino v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Industry Pension Fund, 712 F.2d 882, 4 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1903, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 25066 (8th Cir. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Carlo Torimino appeals from the district court’s 1 judgment upholding a decision by the trustees of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union — Industry Pension Fund (Pension Fund) denying his application for a disability pension. 548 F.Supp. 1012. We affirm.

In August 1975, Torimino sustained a severe injury to his lower back while working in a meat-packing plant. Following his accident, Torimino ceased working and applied for disability benefits under his union pension plan. Torimino’s pension plan provides disability benefits as part of a benefit package contained in a collective bargaining agreement between Torimino’s employer and his union. All of the benefits are governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461 (1976 & Supp. V 1981).

The Pension Fund trustees denied Torimino a disability pension, finding him not to be totally and permanently disabled under the plan’s rules. The Appeals Committee of the Pension Fund affirmed the trustees’ decision. Thereafter, Torimino instituted this action.

The district court properly recognized that “[rjeview by the courts of the trustees’ decision is limited, and a reviewing court will intervene in the administration of a pension plan only where the trustees’ action is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Quinn v. Burlington, Northern, Inc., etc., 664 F.2d 675, 678 (8th Cir.1981); cert. denied, [456] U.S. [928], ... [102 S.Ct. 1976, 72 L.Ed.2d 444] (1982) [.]” The district court observed that the record contained conflicting medical evidence on the issue of whether Torimino was totally disabled and found there to be “adequate evidence supporting the trustees’ decision.”

After carefully reviewing the record, briefs and oral argument, we conclude the district court did not err in affirming the Pension Fund’s decision. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the district court’s well-reasoned opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 14.

1

. The Honorable Clyde S. Cahill, United States District Judge, for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Carlo Torimino appeals from the district court’s 1 judgment upholding a decision by the trustees of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union — Industry Pension Fund (Pension Fund) denying his application for a disability pension. 548 F.Supp. 1012. We affirm.

In August 1975, Torimino sustained a severe injury to his lower back while working in a meat-packing plant. Following his accident, Torimino ceased working and applied for disability benefits under his union pension plan. Torimino’s pension plan provides disability benefits as part of a benefit package contained in a collective bargaining agreement between Torimino’s employer and his union. All of the benefits are governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461 (1976 & Supp. V 1981).

The Pension Fund trustees denied Torimino a disability pension, finding him not to be totally and permanently disabled under the plan’s rules. The Appeals Committee of the Pension Fund affirmed the trustees’ decision. Thereafter, Torimino instituted this action.

The district court properly recognized that “[rjeview by the courts of the trustees’ decision is limited, and a reviewing court will intervene in the administration of a pension plan only where the trustees’ action is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Quinn v. Burlington, Northern, Inc., etc., 664 F.2d 675, 678 (8th Cir.1981); cert. denied, [456] U.S. [928], ... [102 S.Ct. 1976, 72 L.Ed.2d 444] (1982) [.]” The district court observed that the record contained conflicting medical evidence on the issue of whether Torimino was totally disabled and found there to be “adequate evidence supporting the trustees’ decision.”

After carefully reviewing the record, briefs and oral argument, we conclude the district court did not err in affirming the Pension Fund’s decision. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the district court’s well-reasoned opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 14.

1

. The Honorable Clyde S. Cahill, United States District Judge, for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Central Hardware Company, a Corporation v. Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, and Loran W. Robbins, Marion M. Winstead, Harold J. Yates, Earl L. Jennings Jr., Howard McDougall Robert J. Baker, Arthur H. Bunte Jr., and R v. Pulliam Sr., as Trustees of the Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, and George W. Lehr, Executive Director of the Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, Central Hardware Company, a Corporation v. Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, and Loran W. Robbins, Marion M. Winstead, Harold J. Yates, Earl L. Jennings Jr., Howard McDougall Robert J. Baker, Arthur H. Bunte Jr., and R v. Pulliam Sr., as Trustees of the Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, and George W. Lehr, Executive Director of the Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund

770 F.2d 106 (Eighth Circuit, 1985)

Central Hardware Co. v. Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund

770 F.2d 106 (Eighth Circuit, 1985)

Lawrence v. Westerhaus

606 F. Supp. 275 (E.D. Missouri, 1985)

Niagara of Wisconsin Paper Corp. v. Paper Industry Union-Management Pension Fund

603 F. Supp. 1423 (D. Minnesota, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

712 F.2d 882, 4 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1903, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 25066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlo-torimino-v-united-food-and-commercial-workers-international-union-ca8-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack