Edith McCurry v. Kenco Logistic Services, LLC, 22-1273

McCurry worked in Kenco’s HR department (Apr 2013–Mar 2015) and was covered by Kenco’s short‑ and long‑term disability plans administered and insured by Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company.
McCurry claimed she became unable to work in Jan 2015, notified Hartford, and initially received short‑term disability payments that were soon interrupted; long‑term benefits due July 2015 were denied and later reinstated by Hartford.
McCurry sued Kenco and Hartford (among others) under ERISA and other laws; Hartford was dismissed early for improper venue and McCurry proceeded against Kenco on federal claims.
The district court granted summary judgment for Kenco after concluding the undisputed record showed Hartford—not Kenco—had discretionary authority over benefit eligibility and administration; the court found McCurry failed to comply with Local Rule 56.1 and therefore had not rebutted key facts.
On appeal McCurry argued the evidence (Kenco W‑2, physician evaluation, Kenco’s benefit‑view website, HR emails to Hartford) supported an inference that Kenco controlled benefit decisions, but the Seventh Circuit affirmed because McCurry had not properly presented or disputed facts under the local rules.
The court reiterated prior criticisms of McCurry’s repeated, procedurally deficient litigation and warned that further frivolous appeals could trigger monetary sanctions and a filing bar.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kenco was the decisionmaker for disability benefits	McCurry contended documents and communications show Kenco controlled or influenced benefit payments	Kenco argued Hartford had exclusive discretionary authority to determine eligibility and administer benefits	Court held Hartford, not Kenco, made discretionary decisions; McCurry did not rebut facts showing Hartford’s control
Whether district court abused discretion by enforcing Local Rule 56.1 and viewing the record as unrebutted	McCurry argued the court should draw favorable inferences from her submitted evidence	Kenco argued McCurry failed to comply with Local Rule 56.1 so the unrebutted evidence supporting Kenco should stand	Court held district court did not abuse its discretion; courts may enforce Local Rule 56.1 and view evidence in light most favorable to non‑movant only when facts are properly presented

Johnson v. Advoc. Health & Hosps. Corp., 892 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 2018) (at summary judgment courts view evidence favorably to non‑moving party)
Igasaki v. Illinois Dep't of Fin. & Pro. Regul., 988 F.3d 948 (7th Cir. 2021) (district courts have broad discretion to enforce local summary judgment rules)
McCurry v. Kenco Logistics Servs., LLC, 942 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2019) (prior opinion criticizing McCurry’s procedural noncompliance and frivolous appellate filings)
Support Systems Int’l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995) (monetary sanctions and filing restrictions for unpaid sanctions)