Gwendolyn Patricia Smith v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Civil Action No. 2016-2194

Background

Gwendolyn P. Smith worked for TWA from 1986 to 1991 and retired in 1995; TWA later failed and PBGC became trustee of the TWA pension plan in 2001.
In 2014 Smith contacted PBGC claiming she never received a pension payment; PBGC’s records (the TWA Employee Master Report) showed a lump-sum distribution of $12,613.65 paid May 1, 1995.
Smith appealed; the PBGC Appeals Board denied relief, citing the Master Report, an agency audit finding TWA records generally reliable, plan rules permitting early lump-sum distributions, and Smith’s lack of documentary proof of non‑receipt.
The Board acknowledged absence of cancelled checks but found the weight of evidence supported PBGC’s conclusion that payment was made and received before PBGC became trustee.
Smith sued for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act; both parties moved for summary judgment in the district court.
The court reviewed the administrative record under the APA standard and granted PBGC’s motion, holding the agency’s decision was reasonable and supported by the record.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PBGC’s finding that Smith already received a lump‑sum pension is supported by substantial evidence	Smith: she never received a check or benefits and thus PBGC’s records are wrong	PBGC: Master Report, agency audit, plan rules, and absence from participant list in 2001 indicate payment was made; Smith offered no documentary proof of non‑receipt	Held: PBGC’s finding is supported by the administrative record and substantial evidence; summary judgment for PBGC
Whether PBGC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying Smith’s appeal	Smith: agency decision is incorrect and unsupported	PBGC: decision was based on examination of records, reasonable inferences, and lack of contrary evidence	Held: not arbitrary or capricious; agency considered relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between facts and decision
Effect of Smith’s long delay in contacting PBGC	Smith: delay does not change the merits — she claims non‑receipt	PBGC: 19 years after retirement (13 years after PBGC became trustee) undercuts Smith’s claim and supports reliance on existing records	Held: delay was a reasonable consideration weighty against Smith’s unsupported recollection
Pro se claimant standard: whether filings required more favorable treatment	Smith: (pro se) her submissions should be liberally construed	PBGC: administrative‑record review applies; no allegations of bad faith	Held: Court applied liberal construction but limited review to administrative record; no relief warranted

Key Cases Cited

Occidental Eng’g Co. v. INS, 753 F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1985) (court’s review confined to whether administrative record permits agency decision)
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1971) (standard for judicial review of agency action)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard requires rational connection between facts and agency choice)
Alpharma, Inc. v. Leavitt, 460 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (need for agency to examine relevant data and explain decision)
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership v. Salazar, 616 F.3d 497 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (limits review to administrative record absent strong showing of bad faith)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1972) (pro se filings held to less stringent standards)