Donald Tompkins v. Central Laborers' Pension Fun
712 F.3d 995
7th Cir.2013Background
- Tompkins, a Fund participant, applied for disability benefits in 1999 based on chronic bronchitis; the Fund terminated benefits in 2007 after he began full-time work, citing the plan’s definition of total and permanent disability; Amendment 7 to define TPD and the $14,000 non-laborer earnings rule were not provided to Tompkins; his initial disability benefits were approved in 1999, but the Plan documents were not supplied; he challenged the Fund’s interpretation, argued the 14,000 provision should apply to his employment, and claimed lack of notice and ERISA anti-cutback violations; district court granted summary judgment for the Fund and later trial on its counterclaim, with Tompkins appealing multiple conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the discretionary standard applies to ERISA review | Tompkins argues Conkright forecloses deference. | Fund contends discretionary authority warrants arbitrary-and-capricious review. | Yes, arbitrary-and-capricious standard applies. |
| Whether the 14,000 provision is plain or ambiguous | Tompkins contends the provision plain and favored his reading. | Fund argues ambiguity; interpretation supported by plan structure. | Ambiguous; deferential interpretation employed. |
| Whether the Fund breached fiduciary duties | Tompkins alleges failure to provide applicable plan rules and misnotice. | No misrepresentation or breach; notice and documents adequate. | No fiduciary breach proven. |
Key Cases Cited
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (U.S. 1989) (establishes discretionary-review framework for ERISA benefits)
- Hess v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 274 F.3d 456 (7th Cir. 2004) ( outlines 3-part arbitrary-and-capricious standard guidance)
- Van Boxel v. Journal Co. Emps. Pension Trust, 836 F.2d 1048 (7th Cir. 1987) (describes sliding-scale review under the standard)
- Marrs v. Motorola, Inc., 577 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2009) (discusses sequencing in considering conflicts of interest)
- Conkright v. Frommert, 130 S. Ct. 1640 (U.S. 2010) (addresses trustee discretion and when deference may be withdrawn)
- Anweiler v. Am. Elec. Power Serv. Corp., 3 F.3d 986 (7th Cir. 1993) (duty to provide accurate information under ERISA)