Benefits for disabled carpenters

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
33 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Benefits for disabled carpenters

Bennett
After working for over 15 years and being retired and totally disabled for 12, my health care is being taken away because now they decide that they want to change the requirements for health insurance. I worked so hard to make sure my family was taken care of, and my body took a lot from it all (As I'm sure most of you already know so well). My son is a type 1 diabetic and needs this insurance to live. They say there are affordable options, but those will still cost over $1000.00 a month, which there is no way I could afford. Is anyone else in this position right now? Is there anything we could do? This is a disaster for my family and I, and a slap in the face after all the work I have done.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Benefits for disabled carpenters

Ethics


         Sadly for you, McCarron has set it up so that he has the ultimate authority to extend his magic wand to authorize a solution to permanently rectify your situation for your benefit.

But you are of the lowly rank and file, and not a McCarronite- so it is likely that even if you had to opportunity to kiss his ring personally, you did not serve him on one of his loyal district councils throughout the land, and can easily be ignored without even a second thought..............

   Are you alone in this plight? No.

          As a rank and filer, there are thousands like you, who have never spoken up on any blog-site to share their misfortune, and never will.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Benefits for disabled carpenters

!!!!
Ethics only mimicks Durrough by blaming the victim.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Benefits for disabled carpenters

Braciole
In reply to this post by Bennett
We must get together & find every member that is going to lose their health insurance, if we can all stand up & have the current members stand up for us together we can win. At the town hall meeting we must all video tape it and post it on youtube. We must all give each other a contact list, we must all go to our congressman, we must all post online and use social media, we should all chip in for a lawyer who will fight for us. Remember the older men fought for what we have & they take more away, soon there will be nothing for the current members & the generation after them.
NYC
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Benefits for disabled carpenters

NYC
WHERE'S THE BEEF MR. BRACIOLE?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Benefits for disabled carpenters

RichardDorrough
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by !!!!
First my name is Dorrough not Durrough. Nobody is blaming the victim despite you BS stories . When however the information and documents of pending actions are provided and members are warned whats coming and do nothing you can be assured they get called on it. One to show that I or we knew what we were talking about and in the future perhaps you will put more faith in our credibility and two learn the lesson of the mistake and act in advance. Nobody ..Especially me is happy about the misery of others or blaming anybody. I notice you offer not a single bit of helpful advice but needed to yet again make a worthless speech.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Benefits for disabled carpenters

RichardDorrough
In reply to this post by Bennett
Bennett. What fund are you in. Go to https://www.efast.dol.gov/portal/app/disseminate?execution=e1s1 so you can pull up your fund 5500 and study it to learn who the trustees are. When the change was introduced and who voted on it and when.Keep in mind. The Union or Council does NOT control you fund the Trustees do and the fund rules do.See Fuchs vs Allen to prove it. Case 1:02-cv-01552-DNH-RFT Federal District Court Northern NY. Any change to the plan rules or plan documents must be by Trustee vote and with proper notification Go make sure it was done. Fund out if they really need ed to do it because of the fund or if they did it so they can divert more fund money to scams as they did in the SWRCC. They have just eliminated Heath benefits to all Retirees as they created a new Hudson Yards Tower C partnership to divert millions more to anti Union Stephen Ross and the Fake Coal mine company Macquarie Infrastructure. Also if it was not true they would not be seating trustees who are yes men and will vote for anything they tell them
   
You said they decided that they want to change the requirements for health insurance. They have a Fiduciary Duty under ERISA to act in the best interest of the fund participants. At the very least go see if they have done so. Who ordered the cuts and if they were needed. If you have any doubts demand an EBSA investigation.

Also. Have a look at  Retirees File Class Action Lawsuit to see if it can be used in your situation

On May 23, 2012, Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney, The Law Office of Harvey S. Mars LLC, as and for their Complaint, allege as follows:

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. This is a class action pursuant to the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. as amended, ("LMRA"), 29 USC § 185, et. seq. and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C, § 1001 et. seq. to enjoin the defendants, the New York City District Council of Carpenters Welfare Fund ("Welfare Fund" or "Carpenters Welfare Fund") from requiring contributions and co—payments from the plaintiffs and other similarly situated retired participants of the Welfare Fund. This action also seeks to enjoin the Council of Carpenters Welfare Fund and its Trustees and Executive Director from making any payments from the assets of the Welfare Fund to the New York City District Council of Carpenters (“District Council") and to require the Defendants to repay to the Welfare Fund all monies improperly transferred. Plaintiffs additionally seek the costs and attorney's fees incurred in prosecuting this action.

2. Effective June 1, 2012, the retiree class will all be required to make substantial payments for what were previously free health benefits and their participation in the health plan will be terminated unless such payments are made. There are approximately eight thousand retired carpenters in the class and an additional number of spouses and eligible dependents, and it is therefore impracticable to bring all of them and the other class members before the Court. There are questions of law and fact presented herein which are common to the entire class of persons; the named plaintiff`s’ claims are typical of those of the class; and the defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds identical in opposition to the interests of the entire class. The named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the said class.

 Do not listen to clowns who say wheres the beef or you cant do anything about it. The NYC Retirees fought back and got some of it back regardless of how much.

 Good Luck and if I can direct you to any documents or info ask and I will. Most important is to understand these are your funds and not the UBCs play things or cash cows. Dont listen to these people sent here to discourage you from taking any action.
NYC
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Benefits for disabled carpenters

NYC
In reply to this post by RichardDorrough
" I or we knew........."

"We" or "I" did not force the RO's removal as was claimed by TED.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Benefits for disabled carpenters

Braciole
In reply to this post by NYC
LOL, That is what needs to asked at the meeting. I feel we need to stand as one on this, because what about the members of today and their families?
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Benefits for disabled carpenters

Ted
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Bennett
First - follow the advice of Rich Dorrough above; then file for equitable relief under ERISA. Your ongoing treatment for any disability related issues and your sons medical requirements all fall under non-traceable assets.

Further, you are covered by the law in effect at the time of your disability & the Health Funds susbsequent (post-facto) changes demanding that you pay up, 'X' no. of dollars per month to maintain what is already owed to you under the terms of the plan in existance at the time of your disability appear to be illegal as the Health Fund now seeks reimbursement of certain of your assets (your cash) payable to them on a monthly basis in perpetuity.

Costs to treat your conditions, your sons or anyone else in your family under a family plan; particularly medicines required for any treatment all fall under the non-traceable assets protection.

Sounds odd but a traceable asset the funds could go after would be a car, a home a piece of land. The Funds cannot sue you or force you to pay twice for what they already owed to you & yours under the original plan requirements when you were hurt/disabled. Appears that they're double dipping & now trying to profit from your situation.


Majority Opinion:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-723_1bn2.pdf

Full case above. You and other retirees must use every available legal doctrine and precedent to your advantage. While not all of this case is directly applicable to you, there are certain aspects within this case which provide legal theories which can be used in a direct cause of action when filing suit against the fund.

The Funds greed in a post facto change to rules after the date of your disability in my view appears to be their attempt to utilize the 'subrogation' theory to go after your future assets (cash) you & your family use to pay for the non-traceable asset(s) which are used for life saving medications for your son or for your continued treatment for your personal disablity. If you did not sue the funds at the time of your disability claim - then the Funds have no future claim to which the subrogation claim can apply - whether at law or in equity. The Funds are trying to have it both ways and as such, their false claim to your future earnings or cash if you prefer wuold amount to an illegal seizure of your assets to which the Funds are not entitled.

Pending the date of your disability, you may still be entitled to sue the funds & you should consult an attorney whose practice is devoted to these type cases noting the statute of limitation to file suit. Since it is an ongoing issue, the statute clock may not yet have run; re: tolling.

____________________________



SyllabusNOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as isbeing done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has beenprepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
MONTANILE v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
NATIONAL ELEVATOR INDUSTRY HEALTH BENEFIT
PLAN


CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 14–723. Argued November 9, 2015—Decided January 20, 2016


Employee benefits plans regulated by the Employee Retirement IncomeSecurity Act of 1974 (ERISA or Act) often contain subrogation clausesrequiring a plan participant to reimburse the plan for medical expenses if the participant later recovers money from a third party for his injuries. Here, petitioner Montanile was seriously injured by a drunk driver, and his ERISA plan paid more than $120,000 for hismedical expenses. Montanile later sued the drunk driver, obtaining a $500,000 settlement. Pursuant to the plan’s subrogation clause, respondent plan administrator (the Board of Trustees of the NationalElevator Industry Health Benefit Plan, or Board), sought reimbursement from the settlement. Montanile’s attorney refused thatrequest and subsequently informed the Board that the fund would be transferred from a client trust account to Montanile unless the Board objected. The Board did not respond, and Montanile received the settlement. Six months later, the Board sued Montanile in Federal District Court under §502(a)(3) of ERISA, which authorizes plan fiduciaries tofile suit “to obtain . . . appropriate equitable relief . . . to enforce . . .the terms of the plan.” 29 U. S. C. §1132(a)(3). The Board sought anequitable lien on any settlement funds or property in Montanile’s possession and an order enjoining Montanile from dissipating any such funds. Montanile argued that because he had already spent almost all of the settlement, no identifiable fund existed against which to enforce the lien. The District Court rejected Montanile’s argument, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that even if Montanile had completely dissipated the fund, the plan was entitled to re2

MONTANILE v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF NAT. ELE-
VATOR INDUSTRY HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN
Syllabus
imbursement from Montanile’s general assets.

Held: When an ERISA-plan participant wholly dissipates a third-party settlement on nontraceable items, the plan fiduciary may not bring suit under §502(a)(3) to attach the participant’s separate assets.Pp. 5–15.
(a)
ᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳtain . . . equitable relief.” Whether the relief requested “is legal orequitable depends on [1] the basis for [the plaintiff’s] claim and [2]the nature of the underlying remedies sought.” Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., 547 U. S. 356, 363. Pp. 5–9.

(1)
This Court’s precedents establish that the basis for the Board’s claim—the enforcement of a lien created by an agreement to convey a particular fund to another party—is equitable. See Sereboff, 547 U. S., at 363–364. The Court’s precedents also establish that thenature of the Board’s underlying remedy—enforcement of a lienagainst “specifically identifiable funds that were within [Montanile’s]possession and control,” id.,ᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳtable had the Board immediately sued to enforce the lien against thefund. But those propositions do not resolve the question here: ᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳant has dissipated all of a separate settlement fund, and the planthen seeks to recover out of the defendant’s general assets. Pp. 5–7.

(2)
ᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳ ᆳᆳᆳtiff could ordinarily enforce an equitable lien, including, as here, anequitable lien by agreement, only against specifically identified fundsthat remained in the defendant’s possession or against traceable items that the defendant purchased with the funds. See 4 S. Symons, Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence §1234, pp. 692–695. If a defendant ᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳsets instead. See Restatement of Restitution, §215(1), p. 866. Pp. 8–
9.

(b) ᆳᆳᆳᆳtable lien against Montanile’s general assets are unsuccessful. Sereboffᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳquirement for equitable liens by agreement. See 547 U. S., at 365. ᆳᆳᆳᆳuitable lien against general assets. And the Board’s claim that ERISA’s objectives are best served by allowing plans to enforce suchᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳᆳquate to overcome the words of its text regarding the specific issueunder consideration.” Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508
U. S. 248,
261. Pp. 9–14.
Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2016) 3
Syllabus

(c) The case is remanded for the District Court to determine, in the first instance, whether Montanile kept his settlement fund separatefrom his general assets and whether he dissipated the entire fund onnontraceable assets. P. 14.
593 Fed. Appx. 903, reversed and remanded.

THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined, and in which ALITO, J., joined except for Part III–C.
 GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Benefits for disabled carpenters

Ethics
In reply to this post by Bennett
Listen to the sage advice of Ted and Richard Dorrough. Lawyer up, and fight the very union you gave up your health to, the one that's trying to cheat you out of what you earned, using the very funds you forfeited to get the very  benefits you have to fight for- all over again.

   

   Godspeed brother.
JPR
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Benefits for disabled carpenters

JPR
 I received a letter yesterday stating that they revised the eligibility rules for anyone receiving disability Retiree Welfare Fund coverage. Now you must have a minimum of 15 vested credits and I only have 14 vested credits so I no longer meet the requirements for continued coverage.  I called the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA).  I asked if this was legal. It seems unfair. If I worked for a company where retirement age was 55 and after I retired could they call me up at age 60 and tell me to come back to work because retirement age is now 65? Of course not so how could they do this? The woman said she will check into it and get back to me in a few days. I think that all the disabled retirees should get together and get a lawyer. Maybe we could call up http://www.harveymarsattorney.com/ this is the firm to sue on behalf of retirees the last time
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Benefits for disabled carpenters

Bennett
Hello All,

   I will be going to the town hall meeting next Wednesday. We all need to group together and fight this. We are only strong in numbers. Harvey Mars, the lawyer mentioned above, is already working on this case. I have been in contact with him. We need EVERYONE to get in touch with Harvey, this is how we will group together and fight this.
http://www.harveymarsattorney.com/ 
JPR
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Benefits for disabled carpenters

JPR
I just sent Harvey Mars a message. Does anyone know how many disabled retirees this has affected?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Benefits for disabled carpenters

Bennett
Okay great, we need as many as we can to band together. There are 875 families who received the same letter we did. There are many out there in our position, so it is important to lawyer up and go to these town hall meetings. We need to fight back.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Benefits for disabled carpenters

RichardDorrough
In reply to this post by NYC
""We" or "I" did not force the RO's removal as was claimed by TED."  You have no idea if Ted helped facilitate the departure of Walsh. It is well documented that he certainly did call out Walsh ,Berman the US Attorney and the rest of the crew for their violation of Federal and State law such as the NLRA violations the NLRB have now agreed were and are illegal. He was spot on when he was asking Why Berman and Walsh were not doing their job which was to babysit a consent decree and instead were trying to create Unionism according to their own opinions and willful violations of State and Federal Law.. Remember the Walsh and Bridget you lie and I will swear to it game. Despite your denial and perhaps straight out jealousy there WERE quite a few I(s) and We(s) challenging (1)Assessments whenever you felt like it and screw the LMRDA. (2)Forced Unionism and screw the NLRA (3)The Carpenters Reward Program and screw workers rights and NYS Law.(4) "Locals have outlived their Usefulness" and screw the Sec of Labor. There were I(s) and We(s) and and none of them included you.  

     How does your opinion on Ted and Walsh, however meaningless it may be, have anything to do with this person losing his benefits. I ask again why you never ever offer any help but continue with your speeches.
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Benefits for disabled carpenters

Ted
In reply to this post by Bennett


Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO. ET AL. v.
GLENN
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
No. 06–923. Argued April 23, 2008—Decided June 19, 2008


Petitioner Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) is an administrator
and the insurer of Sears, Roebuck & Company’s longterm
disability insurance plan, which is governed by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The plan gives
MetLife (as administrator) discretionary authority to determine the
validity of an employee’s benefits claim and provides that MetLife (as
insurer) will pay the claims. Respondent Wanda Glenn, a Sears employee,
was granted an initial 24 months of benefits under the plan
following a diagnosis of a heart disorder. MetLife encouraged her to
apply for, and she began receiving, Social Security disability benefits
based on an agency determination that she could do no work. But
when MetLife itself had to determine whether she could work, in order
to establish eligibility for extended plan benefits, it found her capable
of doing sedentary work and denied her the benefits. Glenn
sought federal-court review under ERISA, see 29 U. S. C.
§1132(a)(1)(B), but the District Court denied relief. In reversing, the
Sixth Circuit used a deferential standard of review and considered it
a conflict of interest that MetLife both determined an employee’s eligibility
for benefits and paid the benefits out of its own pocket. Based
on a combination of this conflict and other circumstances, it set aside
MetLife’s benefits denial.

Held:

1. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U. S. 101, sets out
four principles as to the appropriate standard of judicial review under
§1132(a)(1)(B): (1) A court should be “guided by principles of trust
law,” analogizing a plan administrator to a trustee and considering a
benefit determination a fiduciary act, id., at 111–113; (2) trust law

2 METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. v. GLENN
Syllabus
principles require de novo review unless a benefits plan provides otherwise,
id., at 115; (3) where the plan so provides, by granting “the
administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility,”
“a deferential standard of review [is] appropriate,” id., at 111,
115; and (4) if the administrator or fiduciary having discretion “is operating
under a conflict of interest, that conflict must be weighed as a
‘facto[r] in determining whether there is an abuse of discretion,’ ” id.,
at 115. Pp. 3–5.

2. A plan administrator’s dual role of both evaluating and paying
benefits claims creates the kind of conflict of interest referred to in
Firestone.
 That conclusion is clear where it is the employer itself that
both funds the plan and evaluates the claim, but a conflict also exists
where, as here, the plan administrator is an insurance company. For
one thing, the employer’s own conflict may extend to its selection of
an insurance company to administer its plan. For another, ERISA
imposes higher-than-marketplace quality standards on insurers, requiring
a plan administrator to “discharge [its] duties” in respect to
discretionary claims processing “solely in the interests of the [plan’s]
participants and beneficiaries,” 29 U. S. C. §1104(a)(1); underscoring
the particular importance of accurate claims processing by insisting
that administrators “provide a ‘full and fair review’ of claim denials,”
Firestone, supra, at 113; and supplementing marketplace and regulatory
controls with judicial review of individual claim denials, see
§1132(a)(1)(B).
 Finally, a legal rule that treats insurers and employers
alike in respect to the existence of a conflict can nonetheless take
account of different circumstances by treating the circumstances as
diminishing the conflict’s significance or severity in individual cases.
Pp. 5–8.

3. The significance of the conflict of interest factor will depend upon
the circumstances of the particular case. Firestone’s “weighed as a
‘factor’ ” language, 489 U. S., at 115, does not imply a change in the
standard of review, say, from deferential to de novo. Nor should this
Court overturn Firestone by adopting a rule that could bring about
near universal de novo review of most ERISA plan claims denials.
And it is not necessary or desirable for courts to create special burden-
of-proof rules, or other special procedural or evidentiary rules, focused
narrowly upon the evaluator/payor conflict. Firestone means
what the word “factor” implies, namely, that judges reviewing a benefit
denial’s lawfulness may take account of several different considerations,
conflict of interest being one. This kind of review is no
stranger to the judicial system. Both trust law and administrative
law ask judges to determine lawfulness by taking account of several
different, often case-specific, factors, reaching a result by weighing all
together. Any one factor will act as a tiebreaker when the others are

Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 3
Syllabus

closely balanced. Here, the Sixth Circuit gave the conflict some
weight, but focused more heavily on other factors: that MetLife had
encouraged Glenn to argue to the Social Security Administration that
she could do no work, received the bulk of the benefits of her success
in doing so (being entitled to receive an offset from her retroactive
Social Security award), and then ignored the agency’s finding in concluding
that she could do sedentary work; and that MetLife had emphasized
one medical report favoring denial of benefits, had deemphasized
other reports suggesting a contrary conclusion, and had
failed to provide its independent vocational and medical experts with
all of the relevant evidence. These serious concerns, taken together
with some degree of conflicting interests on MetLife’s part, led the
court to set aside MetLife’s discretionary decision. There is nothing
improper in the way this review was conducted. Finally, the Firestone
standard’s elucidation does not consist of detailed instructions,
because there “are no talismanic words that can avoid the process of
judgment.” Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U. S. 474, 489.

Pp. 8–13.
461 F. 3d 660, affirmed.

BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS,
SOUTER, GINSBURG, and ALITO, JJ., joined, and in which ROBERTS, C. J.,
joined as to all but Part IV. ROBERTS, C. J., filed an opinion concurring
in part and concurring in the judgment.
 KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion
concurring in part and dissenting in part. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting
opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined.

FULL CASE BELOW:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-923.pdf
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Benefits for disabled carpenters

Ted
In reply to this post by Bennett
The Sharks are reacting! The lawyers, many of whom are against the average worker/employee or their respective rights are crying foul. The correct response for any worker is simply this - spend the damn money & to hell with them. The Insurers & Re-Insurers profit off you year in, year out so who cares what they think or want.

Moreoever, every Insurer is in essence a gambler. When no claims are submitted or paid, all of the money they collect goes into their til or their coffers - all of it. Unfortunately when an insured party sustains a loss such as a disability, the plan has the obligation to pay the claim for the medical benefits; end of story.

In this as in all other instances, when the worker/employee uses his or her brain, seeks outside legal counsel and pursues their other legal remedies outside of Health Fund or fiduciary interests or concerns; when said worker/employee & their legal counsel prevail in their seperate legal action at law - the 'self insured, not for profit' Health Plan now seeks to engorge itself by taking for itself (and not the worker/employee) every cent it paid on the Medical/Disability claim thus zeroing out its obligation to pay anything as directly related to its obligation as the primary insurer.

Were the self insured plan here to prevail on this point of law - it would in fact remove itself from ERISA provisions & other government regulations and its corporate structure declaring itself a "non-profit" organization contrary to ERISA and the specific purpose of the Health Plan which is to fund & pay legitimate claims without trying to illegaly profit or by eating its young (plan participants).

Past that, Medical Benefits via non-profit, tax exempt self insured/funded plan participants are deferred compensation - period; part of wages. There is nothing to prevent unions or their members from ending self insured plans and via CBA's defunding these plans in whole and voting to put the hourly contribution directly into wages; or the weekly pay-check and perhpas given the vast corruption of funds nationwide, that is where the funding belongs - directly in the members hands.

Kinda ironic in that the member & his/her attorney do all the work, win the case, execute an agreement & then comes the fund with their hand out like a welfare recipient wanting a 41% cut of the plaintiff's proceeds ($121,500 of $300,000) for doing absolutley nothing.
_________________________




http://www.law360.com/articles/748535/attorneys-react-to-high-court-erisa-reimbursement-ruling
Ted
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Benefits for disabled carpenters

Ted
In reply to this post by Ted
pre 'Montanile' playbook for:

MONTANILE v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
NATIONAL ELEVATOR INDUSTRY HEALTH BENEFIT
PLAN


CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 14–723. Argued November 9, 2015—Decided January 20, 2016

__________________________

REIMBURSEMENT CLAIMS BY
ERISA HEALTH PLANS

RISK MANAGEMENT PRACTICE GUIDES
OF LAWYERS MUTUAL

http://files.lm2014.gethifi.com/ERISA_Claims.pdf

(as in practice screwing claimants out of what they're entitled to receive when hurt on a job etc.)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Benefits for disabled carpenters

retired 157 steward
In reply to this post by Bennett
You watch the next step is that their going to take back your pension if your not 65 yet
12