Case ID: f3d_527/html/0538-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gerard F. KOLPACKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CSX PENSION PLAN; CSX Transportation, Inc.; CSX Corporation; CSX Corporation Comprehensive Medical Plan; CSX Corporation Group Life Insurance Plan, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 07-1959.
    United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
    Argued: May 2, 2008.
    Decided and Filed: May 21, 2008.
    
      ARGUED: Randall E. Phillips, Provizer & Phillips, P.C., Bingham Farms, Michigan, for Appellant. G. Christopher Bernard, Bodman, Ann Arbor, Michigan, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Randall E. Phillips, Marilyn A. Madorsky, Provizer & Phillips, P.C., Bingham Farms, Michigan, for Appellant. G. Christopher Bernard, Bodman, Ann Arbor, Michigan, for Appel-lees.
    Before: KENNEDY and MARTIN, Circuit Judges; HOOD, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Joseph M. Hood, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.
    
   OPINION

BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-Appellant Gerald F. Kolpacke appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on his claim of wrongful denial of benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1132 et seq. Kolpacke alleges that defendants arbitrarily and capriciously denied his claimed benefits by misapplying the relevant pension plan. The district court granted summary judgment in defendants’ favor because Kolpacke had failed to show that defendants’ had arbitrarily and capriciously applied the terms of the pension plan in calculating Kolpacke’s estimated benefits.

We have carefully read the parties’ briefs, the applicable law, and the district court’s order granting summary judgment to defendants and its order denying plaintiffs motion for reconsideration, and we agree no genuine issues of material fact exist and defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Kolpacke’s claim. Because the district court’s decisions are well-reasoned, we see no reason to embellish upon its opinions. Therefore, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants on Kol-packe’s ERISA claim for the reasons stated in the district court’s orders.