Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01124/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01124-1/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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROGER GRAEBER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

THE HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY

EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ORGANIZATION

INCOME PROTECTION PLAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-01124 CRB

ORDER RE: ADDITIONAL

BRIEFING

In this ERISA action plaintiff challenges the termination of his long-term disability

benefits. The Plan terminated plaintiff’s benefits because the Plan Administrator determined

that plaintiff could work part-time at various occupations and therefore was not Totally

Disabled. A primary issue in this dispute is whether plaintiff’s alleged ability to work parttime necessarily means that he is not Totally Disabled. In its memoranda, the Plan contends

that it provides partial disability benefits only for the first 52-weeks of disability and only

through “Transitional Return to Work.” Plan, § 5(g). As plaintiff pointed out during oral

argument, however, the Plan appears to provide for partial disability payments in section 5(h)

and 5(i), and these partial payments are not on their face limited to the first 52 weeks of

disability.

Accordingly, on or before February 10, 2006, defendants shall file a memorandum, 

Case 3:05-cv-01124-CRB Document 53 Filed 02/02/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2005\1124\orderrebriefing.wpd 2

not to exceed five pages, which addresses sections 5(h) and (i) of the Plan. The

memorandum shall also address the question the Court posed at oral argument; namely, how

the information CorVel evaluated in October 2001 when it concluded that plaintiff was

totally disabled, differed from the information it evaluated in February 2002 when it came to

the contrary conclusion. Plaintiff may file a response, not to exceed five pages, on or before

February 17, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2006

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-01124-CRB Document 53 Filed 02/02/06 Page 2 of 2