Mead v. Reliastar Life Insurance Company
768 F.3d 102
2d Cir.
2014

Background

  • Mead sought ERISA LTD benefits under Reliastar's group policy for alleged total disability.
  • District Court previously remanded to Reliastar in 2008 for further consideration of own-occupation benefits and any-occupation eligibility.
  • In December 2010, the district court again remanded to calculate the 24-month own-occupation benefits and decide eligibility for any-occupation benefits.
  • The district court entered a judgment stating the matter was remanded for further proceedings; a separate monetary award was not yet determined.
  • Reliastar appealed the December 2010 remand order; Mead sought dismissal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Is the December 2010 ERISA remand order a final decision under § 1291? Mead contends the remand did not resolve liability or damages, so not final. Reliastar argues the remand finalized Mead’s eligibility for own-occupation benefits and required calculation, thus final. Remand not final; order appealable only potentially under collateral-order doctrine, which does not apply here.
Should ERISA remand orders to plan administrators be treated as nonfinal generally, allowing immediate appeal only under special doctrines? Mead relies on the court-wide default that remands are nonfinal to avoid piecemeal appeals. Reliastar contends the remand can be final where it conclusively resolves an issue or leaves only ministerial tasks. Remands are generally nonfinal; this case adopts a case-specific framework, finding nonfinality here.
Does Perales v. Sullivan (administrative-remand exception) permit an immediate appeal here? Mead did not argue Perales; appeal should be allowed if exception applies. Reliastar argues Perales would permit immediate appeal if the agency remand cannot be reviewed after remand. Perales does not authorize immediate appeal in this case because appellate rights remain available after remand.
Should the Seventh Circuit approach (42 U.S.C. § 405(g)) be adopted for ERISA remands here? Mead contends Seventh Circuit framework is inapplicable to ERISA. Reliastar urges adopting the Seventh Circuit approach that finalizes certain remands as appealable. Seventh Circuit approach declined; ERISA lacks § 405(g) analogue; no immediate appeal.

Key Cases Cited

  • Papotto v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 731 F.3d 265 (3d Cir. 2013) (recognizes ERISA remands can be appealable in limited circumstances)
  • Rekstad v. First Bank Sys., Inc., 238 F.3d 1259 (10th Cir. 2001) (administrative-remand finality considerations in ERISA context)
  • Hensley v. Nw. Permanente P.C. Ret. Plan & Trust, 258 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2001) (three-part test for appealability of remands to agencies (administrative remand approach))
  • Perales v. Sullivan, 948 F.2d 1348 (2d Cir. 1991) (exception to standard remand nonfinality for agency appeal by the agency)
  • Crocco v. Xerox Corp., 137 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 1998) (guides case-by-case analysis of ERISA remand finality)
  • Petralia v. AT&T Global Info. Solutions Co., 114 F.3d 352 (1st Cir. 1997) (interprets district court remand as retaining jurisdiction to allow post-remand review)
  • Dickens v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 677 F.3d 228 (4th Cir. 2012) (adopts rule preserving appellate rights after remand in ERISA context)
  • Young v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 671 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2012) (retains jurisdiction framework for ERISA remands to preserve review)
  • Bowers v. Sheet Metal Workers’ Nat’l Pension Fund, 365 F.3d 535 (6th Cir. 2004) (adopts interpretation preserving ability to seek final judgment on remand)
  • Nelson v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 468 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2006) (default rule: ERISA remands usually nonfinal due to required plan-action)
  • Henrietta D. v. Giuliani, 246 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2001) (finality depends on substance, not merely district-court labels)
  • In re Fugazy Express, Inc., 982 F.2d 769 (2d Cir. 1992) (damages calculation not automatically final; need final judgment)
  • Somoza v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Educ., 538 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2008) (discusses retained jurisdiction and remand context)
  • Perlman v. Swiss Bank Corp. Comprehensive Disability Prot. Plan, 195 F.3d 975 (7th Cir. 1999) (Seventh Circuit approach to ERISA remand finality)
Read the full case