Morillo v. 1199 SEIU BENEFIT AND PENSION FUNDS, 783 F. Supp. 2d 487

Morillo, pro se, appeals denial of pension benefits under ERISA-governed funds.
Two predecessor funds administered separately before merging on January 1, 2002 to form the 1199 SEIU Home Care Employees Pension Fund.
Morillo worked in covered employment 1983–1994; employer contributions began 1991.
Morillo made three benefit applications (Mar 1998, Apr 1998, Sept 1999); all denied.
Each denial advised rights of appeal within 60 days; Morillo did not pursue appeals.
In 2008, DoL inquiry prompted further review, but Morillo’s entitlement remained denied; court later determined eligibility rules as of her employment period did not permit benefits under either fund.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exhaustion of administrative remedies under ERISA	Morillo exhausted remedies or should be excused	She did not exhaust; remedies available were not pursued	Morillo did not exhaust and matter granted summary judgment on this basis.
Timeliness of the action and potential statute of limitations	Not explicitly argued in complaint; equitable tolling possible	Limitations not reached due to lack of exhaustion; not decided separately	Court treated as summary judgment; limitations not reached due to exhaustion ruling.
Standard of review for pension denial	Arbitrary and capricious review should apply	Trustees’ determinations governed by plan terms; review under standard ERISA grounds	No arbitrary-and-capricious review applied due to exhaustion ruling; issues analyzed de novo.

Eastman Kodak Co. v. STWB, Inc., 452 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2006) (ERISA exhaustion and claims procedures require use of internal remedies before suit)
Paese v. Hartford Life Accident Ins. Co., 449 F.3d 435 (2d Cir. 2006) (ERISA exhaustion affirmative defense; futile remedy exception)
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (Supreme Court, 1989) (Establishes arbitrary and capricious standard for certain plan reviews)