Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-6_06-cv-00893/USCOURTS-alnd-6_06-cv-00893-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHWESTERN DIVISION

CARL DAVID STOKES,

Plaintiff,

vs.

UNITED MINEWORKERS 1974

PENSION PLAN and THE

UNITED MINEWORKERS

HEALTH AND RETIREMENT

FUNDS,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action Number

6:06-cv-0893-UWC

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of

Order Entered 12/21/06, (Doc. 13). Defendant seeks reconsideration from the

Court’s order compelling Defendant to give deposition testimony. For the reasons

elaborated herein, this motion is due to be DENIED. 

In this case, Plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to disability benefits

according to the terms of his United Mineworkers 1974 Pension Plan. 

When conducting a review of an ERISA benefits denial under an

arbitrary and capricious standard . . . the function of the court is to

determine whether there was a reasonable basis for the decision,

based upon the facts as known to the administrator at the time the

FILED

 2007 Jan-16 PM 12:56

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 6:06-cv-00893-UWC Document 16 Filed 01/16/07 Page 1 of 3
2

decision was made.

Jett v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc., 890 F.2d 1137, 1139 (11th

Cir. 1989) (emphasis added). This limited review does not, however, prevent

Plaintiff from seeking deposition testimony from the administrator, in addition to,

discovery of Plaintiff’s pension file. Deposition testimony from Defendant’s

employees may yield additional information considered by the administrator at the

time of its decision. 

The Eleventh Circuit has never issued the blanket prohibition of deposition

testimony in arbitrary and capricious cases, as Defendant suggests. In fact, in

Helms v. Monsanto Co., Inc., 728 F.2d 1416, 1420 (11th Cir. 1984), the Court

examined deposition testimony of the plan administrator in reversing a denial of

benefits:

Dr. Skalka's [the plan administrator] deposition was taken in

November, 1982, in preparation for trial. He was asked by appellant's

counsel to explain his reasoning as to why he concluded that Mr.

Helms was not totally and permanently disabled. He responded: 

‘Well, I felt that Mr. Helms was certainly disabled, but,

according to that definition, with that word, ‘any occupation or

employment for remuneration or profit,’ I really couldn't think

of any disability compatible with conscious life that would

allow me to say anybody was ‘disabled within the definition set

out above,’ so I had to sign it, ‘Not disabled within the

definition.’

Case 6:06-cv-00893-UWC Document 16 Filed 01/16/07 Page 2 of 3
3

. . . . We find that the arbitrator applied the wrong standard to determine

permanent total disability.” Helms, 728 F.2d at 1419 (citation omitted). 

Defendant has raised no meritorious arguments that deposition testimony is

prohibited in arbitrary and capricious cases and has not demonstrated that the

deposition Plaintiff requests would be unduly burdensome. 

Therefore, the Motion for Reconsideration will be denied by separate order.

Done the 16 day of January, 2007. th

______________________________

 U.W. Clemon

 United States District Judge

Case 6:06-cv-00893-UWC Document 16 Filed 01/16/07 Page 3 of 3