Kevin McCay v. Drummond Company, Inc.
509 F. App'x 944
11th Cir.2013Background
- McCay appeals district court summary judgment for Drummond on ERISA disability benefits denial.
- ERISA plan delegated discretion to the Pension Committee; district court remanded for additional evidence, then reinstated the claim and granted summary judgment.
- McCay conceded failure to exhaust administrative remedies by not appealing within 180 days of denial.
- District court rejected exceptions to exhaustion: futility, mental incapacity, and technical notice deficiencies.
- Court held no abuse of discretion in applying exhaustion and in limiting consideration to the administrative record available at decision time.
- Court distinguished duties to consider new evidence post-remand and post-pleadings, aligning with Perrino, Levinson, and Shannon line of precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion requirement applies to ERISA claims | McCay seeks excusal from exhaustion. | Drummond argues exhaustion required. | Exhaustion required; no applicable exceptions. |
| Defects in denial notice excuse late appeal | Notice deficiencies excused untimely appeal. | Notice sufficient; no excusal. | No excusal for notice deficiencies. |
| Mental incapacity tolling of exhaustion | Depression tolled time to appeal. | No tolling recognized under ERISA exhaustion. | No equitable tolling due to mental incapacity. |
| Right to submit unlimited new evidence post-remand | Plaintiff can introduce new evidence post-remand. | Evidence limited to administrative record at decision time. | District court did not err; no right to infinite new evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Perrino v. BellSouth, 209 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2000) (exhaustion generally required; narrow exceptions only)
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (Supreme Court 1989) (deferential review when plan administrator discretion exists)
- Watts v. BellSouth Telecomm., Inc., 316 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 2003) (no automatic relief where plan language suggests immediate court access)
- Curry v. Contract Fabricators, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan, 891 F.2d 842 (11th Cir. 1990) (futility exception when denial of documents prevents meaningful review)
- Lanfear v. Home Depot, Inc., 536 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2008) (futility exception protects meaningful access to procedures)
- Springer v. Wal-Mart Assoc. Group Health Plan, 908 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1990) (limits on futility analysis when interested decision makers exist)
- Shannon v. Jack Eckerd Corp., 113 F.3d 208 (11th Cir. 1997) (remand and consideration of new evidence limited to record available at decision)
- Levinson v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 245 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2001) (no new evidence in district court when plan grants discretion)
- Jett v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala., 890 F.2d 1137 (11th Cir. 1989) (standard about reviewing discretionary plans)