Kough v. Teamsters' Local 301 Pension Plan, 437 F. App'x 483

Kough, a long-time Teamsters member, participated in a union pension plan that included disability benefits.
He first became disabled in 1998 while not employed by a unionized employer; the 1999 denial of those benefits was not challenged here.
In 2005, Kough attempted a return to work with a unionized employer but suffered a heart attack and abandoned the attempt.
The 2005 disability application was made orally and denied in a terse letter that did not fully explain reasons or required information.
Administratively, additional SSA evidence linking the 2005 heart attack to disability was later demanded; the district court’s rulings moved the case through remands and partial benefits awards.
On appeal, the court held the 2005 denial letter violated ERISA notice requirements and remanded for de novo determination of October 2005 through August 2008 benefits, and for reconsideration of attorney fees in light of Hardt v. Reliance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
ERISA notice adequacy in 2005 denial	Rough argues the 2005 letter failed to comply with §1133 and 29 C.F.R. §2560.503-1(g).	Plan argues substantial compliance.	ERISA notice insufficient; remand for de novo determination of October 2005–August 2008 benefits.
Post-hoc rationalization for denial	Rough contends the later SSA evidence-based rationale constitutes an improper post-hoc rationale.	The Plan’s position did not overwrite the initial denial due to inadequate notice.	Court not required to deem de novo review solely because of later rationale; focus remains on notice defect.
Remedy for procedural violation	Asks for award of benefits due to procedural breach.	Remand appropriate unless evidence is clearly in Rough’s favor.	Remand for de novo determination, not an outright benefits award.
Attorney fees under ERISA after Hardt	Hardt changes the standard for awarding attorney fees beyond “prevailing party.”	Pre-Hardt framework governs current decision.	Remand to reconsider attorney-fee eligibility under Hardt.

Hatpin v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 962 F.2d 685 (7th Cir. 1992) (substantial compliance suffices for ERISA notice rules)
Schleibaum v. Kmart Corp., 153 F.3d 496 (7th Cir. 1998) (ERISA notice process not designed to force endless appeals)
Matuszak v. Torrington Co., 927 F.2d 320 (7th Cir. 1991) (post-hoc rationales can affect review where notice fails)
Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993) (remand and expert-evidence context in administrative review)
Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 130 S. Ct. 2149 (2010) (overruled prevailing-party rule; allows fee awards on ‘some degree of success on the merits’)
Love v. National City Corp. Welfare Benefits Plan, 574 F.3d 392 (7th Cir. 2009) (ERISA notice violations support reversal/remand)
Holmstrom v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 615 F.3d 758 (7th Cir. 2010) (discretion in attorney-fee awards under Hardt framework)
Pakovich v. Verizon Ltd. Plan, 653 F.3d 488 (7th Cir. 2011) (post-Hardt framework for determining fee eligibility)
Herman v. Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, 423 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2005) (five-factor test for awarding fees)
Gallo v. Amoco Corp., 102 F.3d 918 (7th Cir. 1996) (factor-based approach to fee awards)
Schneider v. Sentry Group Long Term Disability Plan, 422 F.3d 621 (7th Cir. 2005) (standard of review for ERISA summary judgments)