Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01321/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01321-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joan M. Sandquist
Appellant
Theodore C. Sandquist
Appellant
John G. Shea
Appellee
U.S. West Management Pension Plan
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

FILED 

United States Court ot Appcah Tenth Circuit 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS£ 8 2 1 1995 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JESSE M. AVERHART, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

US WEST MANAGEMENT PENSION PLAN, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

JOAN M. SANDQUIST, and 

THEODORE C. SANDQUIST, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

US WEST MANAGEMENT PENSION PLAN, 

and JOHN G. SHEA, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

No. 92-1317 

No. 92-1321 

Before TACHA, HOLLOWAY and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

On consideration of the Petition for Rehearing of plaintiffappellant Jesse M. Averhart and plaintiffs-appellants Joan M. 

Sandquist and Theodore C. Sandquist, and the Response of 

defendants-appellees US West Management Pension Plan and John G. 

Shea thereto, the court finds and concludes as follows: 

The Petition for Rehearing addresses primarily the argument 

of plaintiffs-appellants that the district court erred by not 

Appellate Case: 92-1321 Document: 01019280736 Date Filed: 02/21/1995 Page: 1 
limiting its review to "only the arguments and evidence before the 

administrator at the time" the decision was made to deny their 

benefit claim. See Sandoval v. Aetna Life & Casualty Ins. Co., 

967 F.2d 377, 380 (lOth Cir. 1992) ("the district court generally 

may consider only the arguments and evidence before the 

administrator at the time it made that decision."). The petition 

asserts that various evidentiary items were heavily relied on by 

the district court which were not before the administrator of the 

Plan when the benefit claims were rejected. 

In connection with our opinion, the petition says that we 

erred in disregarding this argument on the reasoning that "the 

record on appeal does not disclose the nature and extent of the 

evidence before the [Employees' Benefit Committee] when it denied 

plaintiffs' claim for 5+5 benefits or whether that evidence 

differed from what the district court relied on below," so that we 

could not determine whether the court below exceeded its 

evidentiary bounds in its review of the administrative ruling. 

Slip op. at 14. The petition points to the supplemental affidavit 

of defendant-appellee John G. Shea, which did state that he had 

had the opportunity to review the records of the EBC and could 

state with specificity what documents and materials were presented 

to and reviewed by the EBC regarding each of the appeals. 

Averhart App. at 116; Sandquist App. at 120. 

We agree that the affidavit may reasonably be read to 

delineate the limits of the documentary materials before the EBC 

when it 

bounds 

denied the appeals and thus to stake out the evidentiary 

that the district court should have observed. 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-1321 Document: 01019280736 Date Filed: 02/21/1995 Page: 2 
Nevertheless, we conclude that the petition shows no prejudicial 

error in the reasoning and the judgments entered below. The 

essential basis for the district court's ruling was that the EBC's 

interpretation was not arbitrary and capricious in holding that 

the plaintiffs-appellants were not eligible for the 5+5 Amendment 

benefits "because they were not active employees 'on the payroll 

as of February 28, 1990 or on a leave of absence which guaranteed 

reinstatement.'" Memorandum Opinion and Order at 7. That ruling 

turned on the provisions in the 5+5 Amendment to the US West 

Management Pension Plan and the Enhanced Management Transition 

Plan. The judge reasoned that although the US WEST Management 

Pension Plan did not contain specific language requiring 

participants to be "active employees on the payroll," the 5+5 

Amendment to the Plan and the Enhanced Management Transition Plan 

contain language to that effect. Memorandum Opinion and Order at 

7. 

Those controlling documents -- the 5+5 Amendment and the EMTP 

have been clearly recognized as proper grounds for 

consideration by the district court. These documents were 

discussed in plaintiff-appellant Averhart's opening brief, 

pp. 2-6, and in plaintiffs-appellants Joan M. Sandquist's and 

Theodore C. Sandquist's opening brief, pp. 2-6. The briefs both 

recognize, p. 8, that the appeals to the EBC were denied for 

reasons that the EMTP did not guarantee reinstatement; one must 

have been an active employee on the payroll as of February 28, 

1990, or on a leave of absence which guaranteed reinstatement; 

and that because the plaintiffs-appellants did not meet the 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-1321 Document: 01019280736 Date Filed: 02/21/1995 Page: 3 
eligibility requirements, their appeals were denied. When the 

district court held that the interpretation of the Employees' 

Benefit Committee was not arbitrary and capricious, it grounded 

its ruling on the controlling provisions of the EMTP and the 5+5 

Amendment. We are not persuaded that the plaintiffs-appellants 

have shown any prejudice to them by any violation by the district 

court of the proper evidentiary bounds it should have followed in 

making its ruling. 

We hold that the petition of the plaintiffs-appellants, and 

all of the arguments made therein, fail to show any error 

prejudicial to them and accordingly the petition is DENIED. 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-1321 Document: 01019280736 Date Filed: 02/21/1995 Page: 4