Sims v. American Postal Workers Accident Benefit Assoc., et al.
This text of 2012 DNH 202 (Sims v. American Postal Workers Accident Benefit Assoc., et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
William P. Sims, Jr.
v. Case No. 12-cv-91-PB Opinion No. 2012 DNH 202 American Postal Workers Accident Benefit Assoc. et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This is an ERISA case in which William Sims, a former
employee of the American Postal Workers Accident Benefit
Association ("APWABA"), is challenging the amount of the pension
that he was awarded pursuant to the American Postal Workers
Accident Benefit Association Pension Plan ("Plan"). In his
current motion, Sims seeks an order remanding the case for an
appeal hearing before the Plan's Administrator. The Plan
opposes the motion by contending that Sims lost his right to an
appeal hearing by refusing to attend a hearing on the appeal
that the Administrator had scheduled for May 11, 2011.
I. BACKGROUND
Sims first informed the APWABA on November 29, 2010, that
he was invoking his right to receive a pension beginning on March 1, 2011. Although both sides agreed that Sims was
entitled to a pension, they disagreed on the amount. After
several months passed without the issue being resolved, Sims
wrote a letter of complaint to the Secretaries of the United
States Treasury Department and the United States Department of
Labor. In the letter, a copy of which was sent to the APWABA by
e-mail on March 8, 2011, Sims asked that the Plan hold a hearing
on his pension request. On March 10, 2011, Thomas Tierney, an
actuary working as a consultant for Sims, followed up with a
letter to the APWABA explaining Sims's argument in support of
his pension request. Sims renewed his request for a hearing in
a March 16, 2011, e-mail to the Plan's actuary, Lloyd Katz.
On March 28, 2011, Michael Feinberg, an attorney retained
by the Plan, wrote to Tierney and explained that the Plan had
decided to treat Tierney's March 10, 2011, letter and Sims's
March 16, 2011, e-mail as requests for "further consideration"
with respect to the Plan's computation of Sims's pension. The
letter also instructed Sims to file a formal pension application
and explained that once his application was properly filed, he
would begin receiving pension payments retroactive to March 1,
2011, calculated at the rate determined by the Plan's actuary.
If the Plan later agreed with Sims that his pension should be
increased, the letter explained that an additional retroactive 2 adjustment would be made at that time. Sims later filed his
formal pension application and it was received by the Plan on
April 13, 2 011.
On May 4, 2011, Feinberg informed Tierney and Sims by
letter and e-mail that the Plan would hold a hearing on the
pension issue on May 11, 2011. On May 9, however, Tierney
responded by stating that "the illegality of the noted
proceeding will prevent Mr. Sims and I from attending same." On
May 11, 2011, Feinberg wrote to Tierney and stated, "This letter
will also serve to advise you that based on your e-mail the
Pension Fund now considers the request for consideration filed
by you on behalf of Mr. Sims to have been withdrawn." That same
day, however, Tierney sent the APWABA an e-mail renewing his
request for a hearing. In the e-mail, Tierney explained his
view that the proposed May 11, 2011, hearing was improper
because, among other things: (1) it had been scheduled more than
60 days after Sims's request for a hearing; (2) the Plan had
denied Sims access to key witnesses; and (3) the hearing was to
have been presided over by National Director Michael Ganino
rather than the APWABA board, as Tierney believed that Plan
documents required. Feinberg responded with his own e-mail
refuting Tierney's claims. He did not, however, directly
respond to Tierney's renewed request for a hearing. Sims later 3 filed this action without receiving a hearing on his appeal.
The Plan authorizes the APWABA to appoint a Plan
Administrator and provides that if an Administrator is not
appointed, the APWABA will be the Administrator. Plan § 2.2.
On March 25, 2011, the APWABA designated its National Director,
Michael Ganino to serve as the Plan Administrator.
II. ANALYSIS
The Plan obligates the Plan Administrator to hold a hearing
when an employee who has been denied a benefit by a decision of
the Administrator makes a timely request for further
consideration. Plan § 2.11. In the present case, the Plan
elected to treat Tierney's March 10, 2011, letter and Sims's
March 16, 2011, e-mail as requests for further consideration,
and it is undisputed that Sims made multiple requests for a
hearing on his appeal. Thus, the issue presented by Sims's
motion is whether the Plan violated § 2.11 by denying Sims's
requests for a hearing.1
The Plan contends that it did not violate its obligation
under the Plan to hold a hearing on Sims's appeal because Sims
1 I review this issue de novo because the Plan has not argued that the issue should be judged under the more lenient abuse of discretion standard of review that often applies in ERISA cases. See, e.g., Cusson v Liberty Assur. Co. of Boston, 592 F.3d 215, 224 (1st Cir. 2010) . 4 withdrew his request for a hearing when Tierney sent the May 9,
2011 e-mail and Sims refused to attend the May 11, 2011,
hearing. I disagree. Viewing the evidence in the record
holistically, Sims was not attempting to withdraw his request
for a hearing when he declined to participate in the proposed
May 11, 2011 hearing. Instead, he was merely expressing his
unwillingness to attend what he contended was an illegal
hearing. Although Sims and Tierney believed that the scheduled
hearing was improper for several reasons, their principal
objection - that the Plan was proposing to hold the hearing
before National Director Ganino rather than the full APWABA
board - was based on the reasonable but mistaken belief that the
APWABA had not appointed a Plan Administrator and, therefore,
that any hearing on Sims's appeal would have to be held before
the board rather than Ganino. Rather than explaining why Sims
and Tierney were mistaken and offering to reschedule the
hearing, Feinberg simply stated in a conclusory fashion that
Ganino was the Plan's Administrator. He never offered to
reschedule the hearing.
As is often the case in such matters, neither party has
behaved admirably. While Sims and Tierney could have expressed
their concerns with the proposed hearing without flatly refusing
to attend, neither of them withdrew Sims's request for a 5 hearing, and their actions were not so egregious as to result in
a forfeiture of Sims's right to a hearing. Accordingly, the
Plan acted improperly in refusing to give Sims another date for
a hearing after he refused to attend the May 11, 2011 hearing.
Sims's motion to remand (Doc. No. 55) is granted. The
court will retain jurisdiction over the case. The case is
remanded for the limited purpose of requiring the Plan to hold a
hearing on Sims's appeal within 30 days of the date of this
Memorandum and Order. The Plan shall issue a decision on the
appeal within 60 days of the appeal hearing. The motion to
strike (Doc. No. 49) is denied without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2012 DNH 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sims-v-american-postal-workers-accident-benefit-assoc-et-al-nhd-2012.