11'1" P B GC Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

Protecti"gAmerica's Pe"sions 1200 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005-4026 

Office of the General Counsel 

September 11,2008 

Re: Decision on Disability Issues Raised in Consolidated Appeal; Case No: 

199334; Retirement Income Plan for Pilots of US Airways, Inc. (the 

"Plan") 

Dearl '---------

On February 29, 2008, the Appeals Board of the Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation ("PBGC") issued a decision in the above-referenced appeal. I The decision 

resolved ten of the eleven issues raised in your appeal. The only issue not addressed in 

the decision was the disability issue, which was deferred. The disability issue potentially 

affects PBGC benefits for the 32 appellants listed on Enclosure 1 to this decision. 2 

I The Appeals Board issued its February 29, 2008 decision tq I Esquire, of Thelen Reid 

Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP. I I whose law firm then represented the appellants in this 

Consolidated Appeal, had filed on March 23,2007 a 4 I-page appeal brief with exhibits ("Appeal Brief' or 

""AB"). 

Shortly after the Appeals Board issued its February 29, 2008 decision, you replaced j • I as the 

attorney for these appellants. In this decision, our reference to "your appeal" includes the claims made by 

prior legal counsel. 

2 Although Exhibit 0 of the Appeals Brieflists 37 individuals who potentially are affected by the disability 

issue, the Appeals Board had concluded that only 28 of these 37 individuals have timely-filed appeals. See 

page 2 and Enclosure 2-3 of the February 29,2008 decision. We further note that, before the February 29, 

2008 decision was issued, the Appeals Board had added two additional individuals at the request of 

appellants' counsel, thereby increasing to 30 the number of appellants who would receive supplemental 

decisions on the disability issue. See Enclosure 1 of that decision. In addition, after the February 2008 

decision was issued, the Appeals Board decided to include two other individuals potentially affected by the 

disability issue in this decision. 
This decision supplements our February 29, 2008 decision and completes our 

consideration of the issues raised in your appea1. 3 We have followed the same general 

format in discussing the disability issue raised in your appeal as we did for the other ten 

issues decided in our February 29 decision. We have skipped the Introduction and 

BackgroWld paragraphs found in our February 29, 2008 decision, however, as this 

infonnation has not changed. Instead, our focus is on the claims raised on pages 16-23 of 

the Appeal Brief concerning whether PBGC correctly applied the Plan's disability 

retirement fonnula in detennining PBGe benefits for totally and permanently disabled 

pilots. 

As is discussed in more detail below and in the Enclosures to this letter, the 

Apperus Board increased the fonowing seven appellants' benefits: r 

'-----------~----------__,__J, I will receive new benefit determinations, 

each with a new 45-day appeal right. For the remaining 21 appellants, we found no basis 

for changing their benefits with respect to the disability claims. 

This supplemental decision begins by summarizing your appeal and our 

conclusions. It then presents some background infonnation. Next, in the "Discussion" 

section, the Appeals Board responds to the specific disability claims made in your appeal. 

Finally, we are providing, as Enclosures 3 to 34 to this decision, relevant infonnation and 

our specific findings for each of the 32 appellants. These Enclosures are arranged 

alphabetically by last name. 

Your Appeal Concerning Disahiliry Retirement Benefits. Your main contention, which 

we will refer to as "Disability Claim #1," is that PBGC failed to apply a fonnula in 

section 4.1 (E) of the Plan document (the "disability retirement formula") to "totally & 

permanently" (Hy & P") disabled participants.4 Instead, your appeal states that PBGC 

I lwas a timely-filed appellant named in the March 23, 2007 appeal, but was not listed 

in that appeal as haVIng a disability claim. When we realized he had a potential disability issue, the 

Appeals Board fe-opened his appeal. 

I Iwas named in the March 23, 2007 appeal as having a disability issue, but wa~ not " 

at that time eligible to appeal, because his benefit determination was not yet issued. PBGC issued D. 

I Ihis benefit determination on June 25, 2008, and you filed a timely appeal on behalf of j'---___ _ 

on August 5,2008. The August 5, 2008 appeal incorporates all applicable grounds raised in the March 23, 

2007 appeal, which includes disability issues. Because I Iraises the same disability issues as the 

other appellants addressed here, the Appeals Board decided, as a matter of efficiency, to include a decision 

on this aspect ofl I appeal in this decision. 

3 Eight of the 32 appellants, however, are among the 85 appellants who win receive new Benefit 

Determinations in accordance with the Board's Frbruary 2008 decision. See pages 1, 26, and 42 of that 

decision. Additionally, appellant I who is one of the 32 participants potentially affected by 

the disability issue, submitted correspondence directly to the Appeals Board concerning a non-disability 

issue. The Appeals B<Jard recently issued a supplemental decision concerning 1 I non-disability 

issue. 

4 We will use the term "disability retirement formula," to refer to the Plan's retirement formula based on T 

& P disability in its section 4.1(E). As your Appeals Brief notes, the disability retirement formula in 

2 
only considered the nonnal (basic) retirement formulas in calculating retirement benefits 

for T & P disabled particioants. Soecificallv. vour anneal auestions PBGe's calculations 

for two pilots, I I For I I your appeal 

questions whether a $5,345.38 Priority Category 3 ("PC3") benefit on PBGC's Benefit 

Statement was calculated under disability or non-disability retirement formulas. 5 AB at 

20. Fori I you note that PBGC did not use the disability retirement fonnula at 

all in calculating his PBGC benefits. AB at 21. 

Your appeal "demand[ s] that PBGC review and revise its benefit calculations of 

all plan participants who qualify under the disability fonnula of section 4.1 (E) and award 

each retiree the higher of the benefit to which he is entitled under either the Plan's basic 

formula, the disability fonnula contained in section 4.1 (E) or, if applicable, the disability 

provisions of the Prior Plan.,,6 AB at 23. Your appeal also makes five additional 

disability claims, which (along with Disability Claim #1) are addressed in the Discussion 

section of this decision. 

Our Conclusions. Before issuing individual benefit detenninations, PBGe made 

the following general determinations: (1) Plan section 4.1 (E) provides an alternative 

retirement benefit formula (the "disability retirement fonnula") for a T & P disabled 

participant who was receiving Additional Benefit Programs ("ABP") benefits on or after 

December 1, 1974; (2) such a participant's Plan benefit is the larger of the amount 

calculated under the Plan's disability retirement formula or the amount under the Pian's 

applicable non-disability pension fonnulas; (3) where applicable under ERISA and 

PBGC regulations, PBGC will apply the disability retirement formula in calculating PC3 

benefit amounts; and (4) PBGC also will apply the "Disability Maximum Guaranteed 

Benefit" provision in ERISA section 4022(b )(3) to pilots who were T & P disabled under 

both Plan provisions and for Social Security purposes on or before the earlier of their 

retirement or the Plan's tennination date (March 31, 2003). 

Accordingly, the Appeals Board disagrees with your main assertion (Disability 

Claim # 1) that PBGe did not consider the disability retirement fonnula in calculating 

PBGe benefits for T & P disabled pilots. Rather, the Appeals Board found that PBGC 

did apply the disability retirement fonnula in Plan section 4.1 (E) in calculating benefits 

for 38 pilots who PBGe had identified as T & P disabled. We are changing PBGC's 

section 4.l{E) applies to T & P disabled participants who began receiving disability benefits under US 

Airways' Additional Benefit Programs ("ABP") on or after December 1, 1974. The records available to the 

Appeals Board do not establish that any of the appellants had become disabled prior to December 1, 1974. 

5 For a detailed explanation of PC3 benefits, see "The Statutory Scheme for Allocating a Pension Plan's 

Assets" starting at page 5 of our February 29, 2008 decision. 

6 The Appeals Board already answered the Appeal's assertion concerning the "Prior Plan's" disability 

provisions. See pages 34-35 of our February 2008 decision, in which we concluded that the Prior Plan's 

disability fonnula applies only to participants who were receiving Prior Plan disability benefits before 

December 1, 1974. We also pointed out in footnote 57 of that decision that, based on records in PBGC's 

possession, none of the appellants potentially affected by this disability retirement issue were receiving 

Prior Plan disability benefits before December 1, 1974. 

3 
benefit detenninations (or requiring PBGC to issue new benefit detenninations) for the 

eleven appellants listed on page 2 of this decision, however, because PBGC overlooked 

or did not yet have evidence of their disability. Moreover, we are partially granting your 

appeal on what evidence establishes T & P disability. 

With respect to the other disability claims raised in the Appeal, we found that you 

have provided no basis for changing PBGC's determinations for the 32 appellants. 

Background. In this background section, we discuss: (1) the interrelationshlp between 

the separate US Airways, Inc. Pilot Disability Plan ("Disability Plan") (which generally 

pays pre-retirement disability benefits) and the Plan (which pays retirement benefits); (2) 

the eligibility requirements for the Plan's disability retirement formula in section 4.1(E); 

(3) how benefits are detennined under the disability retirement formula in section 4.1 (E); 

(4) PBGC's detennination of PC} benefit amounts for T & P disabled participants; and 

(5) the maximum guaranteed monthly benefit for disabled participants under Section 

4022(b)(3) of ERISA. 

1. The Interrelationship between the Disabllity Plan and the Plan. US Airways 

continues to sponsor the Disability Plan, which provides pre~retirement disability benefits 

and sometimes post-retirement disability benefits to pilots. The Disability Plan is an 

employee welfare benefit plan and is, therefore, not covered by PBGC's termination 

insurance program. The Disability Plan is one of the plans under the ABP. 

While the Plan and Disability Plan are independent, separately-administered 

plans, they are interrelated in the following respects: (1) a pilot is eligible for a Plan 

retirement benefit calculated under the disability retirement formula only if he or she is T 

& P disabled and had received a disability benefit under the ABP; (2) the term ''T & P 

disabled" is defined in the Disability Plan, not in the Plan; 1 (3) whether a pilot is T & P 

disabled is determined by the Disability Plan's Administrator (not the Plan's 

Administrator; and (4) the Plan benefit for an eligible pilot under the Plan's disability 

retirement formula is based, in part, on the initial disability benefit amount that was paid 

under the Disability Plan.8 

2. The Plan's eligibility requirements for the application of its disability 

retirement fonnula in section 4.l(E). Section 4 of the Plan is titled ''Normal Retirement 

Income." Within that section, at 4.1(E), is the Plan's disability retirement formula. Plan 

section 4.1 (E) further establishes eligibility requirements for application of the disability 

retirement fonnula, which are that the participant: (1) must have begun receiving 

disability benefits under the ABP on or after December 1, 1974; and (2) must be 

detennined to be T & P disabled. 

7 The Disability Plan uses the term "Permanent and Total Disability" rather than "totally and permanently 

disabled" as used in the Plan. References to "T & P" in this decision refer interchangeably to those teITIls. 

8 See Plan sections 4.1(E) and 2.1(B). The ABP is dermed in Plan section 2.1(B). 

4 
Plan section 5.1 states, for both disabled and non-disabled participants, the 

eligibility requirements for the Plan's early retirement benefit. Section 5.1 provides that 

a participant may elect to retire and receive an early retirement benefit if he or she: (l) 

has attained age 50 before tenninating US Airways employment; (2) has at least 5 years 

of service; and (3) "is not receiving disability benefits under the Additional Benefit 

Programs." 

Additionally, Plan section 6 provides that a vested participant who has tenninated 

employment and who will "not receive early or nonna! retirement income" is entitled to 

receive the Plan's "Deferred Vested Benefit" as early as age 50. 

3. How Plan benefit amounts are calculated under the disability retirement 

formula in section 4.1 (E). Plan section 4.1 (E) states, in pertinent part, that the yearly 

amount of basic retirement income payable to the pilot at nonnal retirement shall not be 

less than (A) minus (B): 

(A) The amount of disability benefits that the Participant was entitled 

to receive under the Additional Benefit Programs adjusted annually 

on each March 1 to reflect increases in the Cost of Living as 

follows: Whenever the United States Average Consumer Price 

Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers or any index 

substituted therefore by the United States Department of Labor, 

increases by one percent (1 %) or more in any calendar year, such 

amount shall be increased correspondingly, provided that such 

increase shall be limited to 3% of the amount detennined for the 

preceding calendar year and that the maximum aggregate 

adjustment of such amount shall not exceed 33% of the initial 

disability benefit paid under the Additional Benefit Programs; 

(B) the yearly amount of retirement income payable in the Life NoDeath Benefit fonn described in Section 9.1(B) of the Plan to the 

Participant under the Target Benefit Plan and any other taxqualified defined benefit or defined contribution plan maintained 

by the Employer that is attributable to Employer contributions 

(other than any elective deferrals made to such plan(s) in 

accordance with the provisions of Section 401(k) of the Code or 

any contributions to the US Airways, Inc. Employee Stock 

Ownership Plan) for employment with the Employer for which the 

Participant was credited with Credited Service under the Plan 

while the Participant was on a leave or furlough status as a pilot, 

and employed by the Employer in a non-pilot position. 

The reference in Plan section 4.1 (E) to the "amount of disability benefits that the 

Participant was entitled to receive" is not further specified in the Plan, but rather is 

defined in the Disability Plan. The Disability Plan provides that, before a pilot can 

receive (pre-retirement) disability payments, he or she must exhaust his or her vacation 

5 
and sick leave. 9 Sections 1.2 and 3.1 of the Disability Plan state that the initial monthly 

disability benefit amount payable to a pilot under the Disability Plan equals 50% of his or 

her average earnings during the last 12 months of active service. Section 3.3 of the 

Disability Plan further mirrors Plan section 4.l(E) in providing that the maximum 

Disability Plan benefit equals 133% of the initial disability benefit. 

4. PBGe's detennination of PC3 benefit amounts for T & P disabled participants. 

As was discussed in more detail in our February 2008 decision, the benefit in PC3 

is limited to the amount the participant was receiving, or could have received if he or she 

had retired, as of three years before the pension pian's termination date (which we refer 

to as "DOPT-3"). Thus, a pilot would have a benefit in PC3 under the disability 

retirement fonnula if, as of March 31, 2000 (which is DOPT-3 for the Plan), he or she 

was (1) T & P disabled; (2) receiving disability benefits from the ABP; and (3) eligible to 

retire. The benefit in PC3 for such a pilot was the higher of the benefit (as of DOPT -3) 

under the disabillty retirement formula in Plan section 4.1 (E) or under any other 

applicable benefit fonnula. PBGC's calculation of PC3 benefits for T & P disabled 

participants also is discussed in further detail under "Disability Claim #3" later in this 

decision. 

5. Disability Maximum Guaranteed Benefit ("Disability MGB") for Disabled 

Participants. As explained on page 5 of the February 2008 decision, the MGB limit in is 

generally reduced from the age-65 amount if a participant starts receiving PBOC benefits 

at an earlier age. Section 1322(b)(3)~ however, contains the following special rule 

(hereinafter referred to as the "Disability MOB"): 

The maximum guaranteed monthly benefit shall not be reduced solely on 

account of the age of a participant in the case of a benefit payable by 

reason of disability that occurred on or before the termination date, if the 

participant demonstrates to the satisfaction of [PBGC] that the Social 

Security Administration has detennined the participant satisfied the 

definition of disability under title II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 

and the regulations thereunder. 

We note that PBGC, before issuing Benefit Determinations, concluded that the 

Plan's disability retirement formula in section 4.1 (E) is a "benefit payable by reason of 

disability" for purposes of the Disability MGB. Thus, as is discussed under "Disability 

Claim #5" later in this decision, a T & P disabled pilot entitled to have his benefit 

calculated under the disability retirement formula may also qualify for the Disability 

MOB. For plans that terminated in 2003, the MOB is $3,664.77 at age 65 for a benefit 

paid as a Straight Life Annuity ("SLA"). Thus, if the Disability MOB applies to the 

pilot's benefits, the maximum PBGe benefit will not be reduced below $3,664.77 on 

account of age (although the MOB will be adjusted for benefit form as provided under 

PBGe's regulations). 

9 Disability Plan §§ 1.2 (definition of "Benefit Waiting Period") and 3.4 ("Commencement of Benefits"). 

6 
Discussion. In this discussion, we respond to the six specific claims raised 10 your 

appeal concerning the Plan's disability retirement benefit. 

Disability Claim #1: PBGC's Application of the Plan's Disability Retirement Formula 

As discussed above, the Appeal's main contention is that PBOC failed to apply 

the disability retirement fonnula in Plan section 4.1(E) to T & P disabled participants. 

Your appeal asserts that many of the 32 appellants would receive higher benefit amounts 

ifPBGC had calculated their benefits using that fonnula. IO 

We disagree with your assertion that PBGe failed to apply the disability 

retirement formula in Plan section 4.1 (E) to T & P disabled participants. Before issuing 

benefit determinations, PBGC determined that Plan section 4.1 (E) provides an alternative 

disability retirement benefit formula for T & P disabled participants who were receiving 

ABP disability benefits on or after December 1, 1974. 11 PBGe further determined that a 

T & P disabled participant's benefit is the larger of the amount calculated under the 

Plan's disability retirement fonnula or the amount under the Plan's applicable nondisability pension formulas. 12 These determinations are summarized on pages 10-11 of 

the Actuarial Case Memo for Retirement Income Plan for Pilots of u.s. Airways, Inc. 

(August 3, 2006) ("Actuarial Case Memo"), 

We further found that PBGC implemented the above-discussed general 

detenninations when it ca1culated benefi'ts and issued benefit detenninations for pilots 

who were identified as T & P disabled.. As trustee of the Plan, PBGC received 

infonnation from US Ainvays that identified 38 participants who were receiving 

payments from the ABP on the Plan's tennination date based on T & P disability. PBGC 

10 One appellant, I rs a fonner Piedmont pilot who, prior to the merger of Piedmont into US 

Airways, was receiving a pre-retirement disability benefit under a Piedmont-sponsored pension plan. 

Later, after the merger of the companies in 1990, the fonner Piedmont plan was merged into the Plan. 

Thus, 1 I' pre-merger disability benefit became a benefit obligation under the Plan based on the Plan 

provisions aP

0

licabie to former Piedmont pilots. See Plan section 17.2. As is explained in the Enclosure 

for 1 Enclosure 29, the Appeals Board decided (based on his particular circumstances) that he will 

receive a new Benefit Determination with a new 4S-day appeal right. 

11 PBGe also concluded that the section 4.I(E) disability retirement fonnula, together with the "Deferred 

Vested Benefit" provision in section 6, entitled aT & P disabled partiCipant to retire and receive his or her 

benefit under the disability retirement formula at normal retirement, or to terminate employment and 

receive an actuarially-reduced benefit at age 50 or aftexwards. Based on this interpretation of the Plan's 

provisions, PBGC further concluded the benefit calculated under the Plan section 4.1 (E) disability 

retirement formula is a "pension benefit" based on T & P disability that, for eligible participants, is 

guaranteed by PBGe. See 29 C.F.R. § 4022.6 ("Annuity Payable for total disability"). 

l2 We use the term "basic formulas" here to include: (i) the "Basic Fonnula" in Plan § 4.1, which is quoted 

on page 46 of our February 29, 2008 decision; (ii) similar special formulas in Plan sections 16-18 for 

fonner pilots at Piedmont Aviation, Pacific Southwest Airlines, and Shuttle, Inc.; and (iii) for T & P 

disabled participants who were on the Allegheny Airlines' System Seniority List as of December I, 1972, 

the "Prior Plan minimum benefit" that is described in Plan section 4.1 (E). See the Board's February 2008 

Consolidated Decjsion, pages 34·35, for a discussion of the "Prior Plan minimum benefit." 

7 
detennined that all 38 of these participants are eligible to have their benefits at nonnal 

retirement calculated under the Plan's disability retirement formula in section 4.1 (E). See 

Actuarial Case Memo at page 10. Of your appellants, however, only two are among the 

38:1 I 

The Appeals Board found that PBGC had correctly identified j~--"J ___ ~ 

~I -~I as T & P disabled and that PBGC correctly calculated their benefits. For CJ 

c:::= the records that US Airways provided to PBGC showed his monthly Disability 

Plan (pre-retirement) benefit was $7,830.90 on March 31, 2003 (DOPT). Thus, his 

retirement benefit under the disability retirement fonnula as of DOPT (before any 

adjustment for commencement date or benefit fonn) is $7,830.90. PBGC also calculated 

his normal retirement benefit under non-disability formulas (before any adjustment for 

commencement date or benefit form) as $6,492.90. 13 PBGC then determined, based on 

those amounts, that it would apply the disability retirement formula in calculating his 

Plan benefit amount since that formula provided him with the largest Plan benefit. 

Similarly, PBGC calculated his PC3 benefit using the disability retirement formula since 

it provided him with the greatest PC3 benefit. 14 

Your appeal questions I I benefit determination because his PBGC 

benefit statement showed a T & P Disability Benefit of $7,307.73 as of April 1,2000 and 

a PC3 benefit of $5,345.38. The reason for the difference between these amounts is that 

PBGC adjusted the $7,307.73 disability amount by an early retirement benefit 

commencement factor of 0.7350 and by an additional factor of 0.9952 for his preretirement death benefit. Thus, contrary to the assumption made in the Appeal, PBGC 

used both the basic fonnula and the disability retirement formula in calculating D 

I I benefits and is paying him a PBGC benefit based on the Plan's disability 

retirement formula in Section 4.1(E) of the Plan. 

1n the case ofl IPBGC records show that he was receiving a monthly 

(pre-retirement) Disability Plan benefit of $7,508.18 when the Plan terminated on March 

31,2003. Although PBGC determined (based on that $7,508.18 Disability Plan amount) 

that the disability retirement formula provided him with the greatest Plan benefit, PBGC 

is unable to pay him his full Plan benefit amount because of the MGB. Additionally, 

PBGC detennined that I I does not have benefits in PC3 because at DaPT -3 he 

was only 41 years old; thus, he was not then eligible to retire under the Plan. PBGC 

determined, however, that I lis eligible for the more favorable Disability MGB 

of$3,664.77 per month (unreduced for age in the form ofa SLA). 

13 $9,935.41 PSA average earnings x 2% x 10.1082 years 

+ $12,508.56 USAir earnings x (14.75 x 2.4% + 1.8% x .25 years) 

14 PBGC calculated I I benefit at DOPT -3, after adjustments for commencement date and benefit 

form, as $5,345.38 under the disability retirement formula and as $3,804.48 under non-disability formulas. 

(The disability retirement formula amount also was greater than the non-disability formula before his 

benefit under either formula is adjusted for commencement date and benefit form.) See discussion in his 

separate Enclosure. 

8 
As already noted, we are changing PBGC benefits for seven participants, and are 

requiring new benefit detenninations for four others, because PBGC overlooked or did 

not yet have evidence of the participant's disability.ls We note that I I who is 

specifically discussed in the Appeal, will have his PBGC benefits increased for this 

reason. 

Disability Claim #2: Required Proof ofT & P Disability 

Your appeal asserts PBGC should apply the Plan's disability retirement fOlIDula 

in calculating the Plan benefits for all participants who have been determined to be T & P 

disabled by either the Social Security Administration ("SSA") or by US Airways. Your 

appeal also asked that PBGC accept (or identify a third party to accept) medical evidence 

ofT & P disability. 

As discussed above, the determination of whether a pilot is T & P disabled is 

made by the Disability Plan's Administrator. Section 1.2 ofthe Disability Plan defines T 

& P disability as "a Disability which wholly and continuously disables and prevents such 

person from engaging in any occupation or employment for wage or profit for which he 

is qualified by reason of education, training or experience. for the remainder of his life." 

While the above-quoted language establishes the general standard for T & P 

disability, the determination of whether or not a particular pilot is T & P disabled 

necessarily requires that Disability Plan officials examine the particular facts and 

circumstances of his or her case. As discussed below, in every case in which the 

Disability Plan administrator identified a pilot as T & P disabled, PBGC and the Appeals 

Board have accepted that determination for purposes of detennining eligibility for the 

Plan section 4.1 (E) disability retirement fOrnlula. 

FOT example, two of the appellants ~ I are among the 38 

participants that PBGC identified, in its audit of Plan records. as being T & P disabled as 

of the Plan's tennination date. PBGC accepted the Disability Plan's T & P disability 

determination for these 38 pilots, including I I In these cases, 

PBGC applied the Plan's section 4.1(E) disability retirement formula in calculating the 

Plan benefit. Other than I Inone of the remaining appellants were 

on this list of 38 pilots that PBGC had identified as T & P disabled during its audit. We 

15 As is discussed in the individualized Enclosures for the appellants, the benefit changes occurring as a 

result of this supplemental decision will affect (depending upon the pilot's circumstances) the benefit in 

PC3 or the benefits guaranteed by PBGC in PC4. We also note that, under ERISA section 4022(c), PBGC 

is paying additional benefits based on PBGC's legal recoveries. The benefits PBGC is paying based on 

section 4022(c) are minimal, however, because the legal recoveries funded only .19% of certain Plan 

bene·fits not already being paid in PC3 or under PBGC's guaranty. 

Since your appeal does not dispute PBGC' s calculations of the Plan benefits funded by legaJ recoveries, 

we have not made findings concerning section 4022(c) benefits in this supplemental decision. We note, 

however, that the amount of a participant's section 4022(c) benefit may increase or decrease a smaU 

amount whenever a Plan benefit, a guaranteed benefit, or a PC3 benefit changes. 

9 
note that PBGC's audit focused on the T & P disability status of pilots who had not yet 

retired, while many of the appellants had retired prior to DOPT. 

In reviewing individual appeJIant records, the Appeals Board identified eight 

more appel1ants, in addition to I Iwho the Disability Plan had 

detennined to be T & P disablea. In each case, the Appeals Board accepted the Disability 

Plan's determination on T & P disability. 16 We note, however, that the Appeals Board's 

acceptance of a T & P disability detennination does not always result in an increase in 

PBOC benefits, for reasons that are explained below and in the pilots' individual 

enclosures. 

Your appeal asserts that "if the Social Security Administration has made a finding 

of total and permanent disability, the lndividual would qualify for the enhanced benefits 

of 4.1(E)." 17 In response to this assertion, the Appeals Board examined the Disability 

Plan's practice to detennine whether or not it had accepted a Sodal Security disability 

award as sufficient proof ofT & P disability_ 

We found that the Disability Plan's practices concerning acceptance of SSA 

disability determinations is consistent with the Appeal's assertion. In every case we 

examined where the pilot had received (or was eligible to receive) a disability benefit 

from the ABP, we found the Disability Plan Administrator ultimately accepted an SSA 

disability award as establishing that the medical requirements for T & P disability were 

met. (In the case of appellant Charles Hemett, the Plan Administrator denied T & P 

benefits for non-medical reasons.) We also note that, in 2004, an Arbitrator discussed in 

detail the Disability Plan's practice in making T & P Disability determinations. The 

Arbitrator, in deciding that a particular pilot's Social Security award should be accepted 

as proof of his T & P disability, noted that in 1982 the Disability Plan had changed its 

definition of T & P disability.!S The Arbitrator concluded: "the parties' practice 

thereafter [i.e., after the 1982 amendment] has been to accept the [S]ocial [S]ecurity 

award as proof of a pilot being totally and pennanently disabled under the Plan." 19 

16 Based on its review ofD:isability Plan records, the Appeals Board found that the appellants discussed in 

Enclosures 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15,23,25,27, and 33 are T & P disabled based on Disability Plan T & P 

disability determinations. 

17 Your appeal accurately notes that the original version of the Disability Plan required a detennination by 

SSA of total and pennanent disability. Your appeal further states, at AB 18, that the ]982 Disability Plan 

amendments "kept the substantive standard" relied on by SSA, but eliminated the requirement for an SSA 

finding of disability. Your appeal, therefore, contends: "Clearly; if the Sociak Security Administration has 

made a finding of [T & P] disability, the individual would qualify for the enhanced benefits of 4.1 (E). "AB 

at IS. 

IS This matter was referred to Arbitration to resolve a January 2002 deadlock among the members of the 

US Airways/ALP A Retirement Board. We further note that PBGC accepted the Arbitrator's decision with 

respect to the particular pilot involved. 

19 As your appeal notes, before a 1982 amendment the Disability Plan stated: "A pilot will be considered 

pennanently and totally disabled ifhis condition qualifies the disabled pilot for disability benefits under the 

Federal Social Security Act." Under a 1982 Amendment, the definition of T & P Disability dropped the 

10 
The Appeals Board accordingly concluded, based on such consistent Disability 

Plan practice, that a pilot would meet the Disability Plan's standard ofT & P disability if 

the SSA found that the pilot was disabled under Social Security standards. Furthell1Jore, 

the Appeals Board decided that, based on this consistent practice, there is no reason to 

require a pilot with such a SSA award to obtain a T & P disability determination from the 

Disability Plan (if there is no documented Disability Plan determination in PBGC 

records). Rather, to expedite processing of the appellants' cases in a manner that is fully 

consistent with the Disability Plan's practice, the Appeals Board decided it would accept 

the SSA awards as establishing that the medical requirements for T & P disability were 

met. 

Your appeal also requests that individuals currently with neither a SSA disability 

award nor a T & P determination under the Disability Plan Hshould be afforded the 

opportunity to present their medical evidence to either PBGC or a qualified party of 

PBOC's choosing in order that a proper detennination of their eligibility for disability 

lretirement] benefits under section 4.1 (E) of the Plan can be made." AB at 18-19. Such 

an opportunity could affect appellants Donovan, Seals, and Ward, for whom we found 

neither a SSA disability award nor a T & P detennination by the Disability Plan 

Administrator. 

While the Appeals Board has decided evidence of a SSA disability detennination, 

based on consistent Disability Plan practices, may be substituted for a fonnal 

determination ofT & P disability by the Disability Plan's Administrator, we are denying 

your request that PBGC review medical evidence to make its own T & P eligibility 

detenninations. Our reasoning is explained immediately below. 

First, the Disability Plan routinely reviewed medical evidence in making 

[ordinary and T & P] disability determinations and has expertise in such reviews. 2o The 

Disability Plan is ongoing, and nothing prohibits a participant from seeking a T & P 

disability determination, using medical or other evidence, from the Disability Plan's 

Administrator. 

Second, when the Plan was ongoing, the Disability Plan Administrator detennined 

whether a pilot was T & P disabled. The Plan then would use the Disability Plan's T & P 

disability finding to detemIine eligibility for the Plan section 4.1(E) disability retirement 

reference to Social Security. The Arbitrator, based on his review of the information provided by US 

Airways and ALP, concluded: "The evidence . . . reveals that the parties agreed to the new language to 

enmrre that a pilot who met the [Disability] Plan's defirrilion Vias not pre\'ented from receiving COLA 

benefits [based on T & P disability] simply because he could not meet the more stringent requirements 

established by the Social Security Administration to be granted disability henefits." 

20 Although the Disability Plan generally did not make a T & P disability detennination until after a SSA 

disability award had been submitted, the Appeals Board found evidence that in at least one case the 

Disability Plan administrators had granted T & P disability in advance of a SSA determination. PBGC's 

records show that on October 13, 1997, Disability Plan administrators had already found that appellant 

Wayne Haines was T & P disabled, while SSA's action awarding him a disability benefit occurred later, on 

February 23, 1999. 

11 
formula. The Appeals Board found no evidence, nor did your appeal assert, that Plan 

administrators themselves ever determined T & P disability; instead, they relied on the 

Disability Plan Administrator's detenninations. Likewise, PBGC should not make its 

own independent determinations of T & P disability, either. We note that independent 

PBGC determinations based on medical evldence (in contrast to acceptance of SSA 

disability awards) could result in outcomes that differ from what the Disability Plan 

would have decided. 

Finally, PBGC has no experience in applying the Disability Plan's standards in 

making judgments on whether medical records indicate ordinary disability or T & P 

disability. In contrast to our acceptance of SSA disability awards - which was the 

Disability Plan's consistent practice and which involved application of a simple to apply 

"bright-line" test - accepting medical records would require PBGC to discern and apply 

medical standards of a Plan PBGC does not trustee or even insure. 

Therefore, the Appeals Board is denying your request that PBGC (or a third party 

other than SSA) use medical evidence as a substitute for a formal T & P disability 

determination under the Disability Plan. PBGC will continue to review any new 

evidence of a fonnal SSA disability award or fonnal T & P disability determination by 

the Disability Plan Administrator, if such evidence would establish a disability onset date 

prior to DOPT that could impact a participant's benefit amount. 

Disability Claim #3: PC3 Benefit Under Section 4.1{E) for T & P Disabled Pilots 

Your appeal states, at AB 19: "[A]l] Plan participants who are eligible to retire on 

March 31, 2000 and are found to have a T & P disability (as defined in the Plan) are in. 

PC3, and since PC3 is 100% funded, all of those individuals are entitled to pension 

payments from PBGC no less than what they had been receiving or would have received 

under the disability plan, plus cost of living adjustments up to a maximum of 13 3%." 

Aiso, your appeal contends that the applicable IRe section 415 limit for detennining PC3 

benefit amounts for T & P disabled participants is the limit in effect on March 31, 2003, 

or the date of retirement, whichever is later, rather than the limit in effect on March 31, 

2000. AB at 20-21. 

As discussed above on page 6, the benefit in PC3 is limited by the amount the 

participant was receiving, or could have received ifhe or she had retired, as of three years 

before the plan terminated. Thus, a pilot would have a benefit in PC3 under the disability 

retirement foanula if, as of March 31, 2000 (which is DOPT-3 for the Plan), he or she 

was (1) T & P disabled; (2) had begun receiving disability benefits from the ABP; and (3) 

was then eligible to retire. The benefit in PC3 for such a pilot is the ,higher of the benefit 

(as of DOPT-3) under the disability retirement fonnula in Plan section 4.1(E) or under 

any other applicable benefit fonnula. 

If, however, a pilot was e1igible to retire at DOPT -3 but did not become T & P 

disabled until after that date, the PC3 benefit amount cannot be based on the Plan's 

disability retirement formula (since such an individual could not have retired at DOPT-3 

12 
and received a retirement benefit under that fonnula). Instead, the PC3 benefit amount in 

that situation is based on the amount that would be payable, at DOPT -3, under the 

applicable non-disability fonnula that produces the highest benefit. 

As we discussed in the February 2008 decision (Issue #2), PC3 benefits, once 

calculated, are fixed as of DOPT-3. With respect to COLAs under the disability 

retirement fonnula, PBGC is unable to provide in PC3 any COLAs that became payable 

under the Plan after DOPT-3. See discussion under Issue #6 of our February 29, 2008 

d .. 21 

eClSlOn. 

We note that, with respect to benefits in PC3, PBGC interpreted the Plan's 

disability retirement benefit provision (in conjunction with other Plan provisions) as 

providing COLAs both to nonnal retirees and to those who retired or could have retired 

before their nonnal retirement date. For normal retirees, the Plan clearly provides. that 

the nonnal retirement benefit is based on the amount the pilot was receiving from the 

Disability Plan at retirement. The nonnal retirement benefit amount then is annually 

adjusted for COLAs in future years (up to 133% of the initial Disability Plan amount). 

Thus, based on PBGC's regulations, any COLA increase that the nonnal retiree received 

after DOPT-3 would not be included in PC3. 

For a T & P-disabled pilot who had not retired but was age 50 or older at DOPT3, the PC3 benefit is detennined as if the pilot tenninated employment at DOPT-3 and 

immediately went into pay status under the Plan?2 To calculate the benefit amount, 

PBGC and the Appeals Board followed a plain reading of the Plan document, starting 

with the Nonna1 Retirement Benefit amount ("NRB") in section 4.1 (E). To calculate the 

PC3 benefit amount for such a T & P-disabIed participant who could have but had not 

retired on April 1, 2000: 23 

21 With respect to COLAs for T & P disabled participants, the Appeals Board identified an error in 

PBGC's Actuarial Case memo. The Actuarial Case memo states, on page] 1, that the PC3 benefit amount 

for an eligible T & P disabled participant is "the T & P disability payment received for March 2003 (limited 

to the original T & P disability benefit multiplied by 133%), reduced by the plan's Early Retirement Factor 

appropriate for his age at April 1,2000." In jts actual PC3 benefit calculations (such as those for Robert 

Boyd), PBGC used the T & P disability payment received for March 2000. The Appeals Board contacted 

PBGC's Benefits Administration and Payment Department C"BAPD"J about this language. BAPD 

responded that the Actuarial Case Memo's reference to "March 2003" (rather than to March 2000) was a 

typographical error. 

In any event, the Appeals Board concluded that March 2000 (rather than March 2003) is the appropriate 

date, because the March 2003 disability payments included COLAs that first had become payable after 

March 2000. It is clear, for the reasons given in our discussion of Issue #6 in the February 2008 decision, 

that COLAs that first become payable after DOPT·3 are not included in PC3 benefits. 

22 See 29CFR4044.13(b)(2). 

23 The individualized Enclosure we prepared for appellant 1 lis an example of how PBGC and 

the Appeals Board found PC3 benefits should be calculated under section 4.1 (E). 

13 
• The first step is to calculate the Nonnal Retirement Benefit under section 4.1 (E). 

This amount is the Disability Plan benefit amount on March 31, 2000, including 

the COLAs effective through that date. Any future COLAs were contingent on 

future events, such as increases in the Consumer Price Index, so no eligibility for 

future COLAs was established on March 31, 2000. Thus, the section 4.1 (E) 

Normal Retirement Benefit on March 31, 2000 includes only COLAs through 

March 31, 2000, like the NRB under section 4.1 (A) includes only service ending 

no later than March 31, 2000. 

• The second step in calculating the PC3 benefit is to reduce the Nonnal Retirement 

Benefit for early commencement on April 1, 2000. The Appeals Board found the 

Plan document simply does not provide any unreduced early commencement 

benefits under any retirement type, as explained under Disability Claim #4 below. 

• Finally, section 4.1(E) provides COLAs in future years (after April 1, 2000) 

capped at an aggregate total of 133%. However, based on PBGC'sregulations, 

such COLA increases are not included in PC3. (As we stated in our February 29, 

2008 decision, COLA increases under the disability retirement formula that went 

into effect after DOPT-3, but before DOPT, may be part of the participant's Plan 

benefit, and those COLA increases generally are in PC4-PCS. Unfortunately, 

Plan assets are not available to fund pe5 benefits.) 

The Appeals Board conduded that your appeal provided no basis for changing the 

above-stated PBGC interpretations of Plan section 4.1 (E) and applicable law. 24 

With respect to the IRe section 415(b) limits, your appeal raises essentially the 

same claims that were made and which the Consolidated Decision addressed under Issue 

#4. The Appeals Board decided that increases to the section 415(b) limits that went into 

effect in the last three years before the Plan tennination date (i.e., between April 1, 2000 

and March 31, 2003) are not induded in PC3 benefit arnounts?5 Your appeal did not 

advance any arguments concerning the 41S(b) limits for disabled participants that 

differed from the arguments advanced under Issue #4 in the Consolidated Decision. 

Accordingly, we see no reason to discuss the 41S(b) limit issue further here. 

Disability Claim #4: PBGC's Use of Early Benefit Commencement Factors in PC3 

Calculations 

Your appeal asserts that the Actuarial Case Memo improperly stated that the 

Plan's early retirement factors applied to the benefits ofT & P disabled participants who 

24 Your appeal states, at AB 23, that US Airways recognized the need to provide COLAs for T & P 

disabled participants "when it directed Towers Perrin to convert I ~ retirement pension to a 

disability retirement pension using the COLA provided in the Plan." US Airways' actions with respect to 

I I however, involved a lO{)% lump sum payment that occulTed before the Plan terminated. We 

concluded that, because of the specific ERISA requirements that apply to PC3 benefits, US Airways' 

actions with respect to I Ido not provide a basis for PBGC to change the COLA amounts in PC3. 

25 See pages 19-22 of the February 29,2008 Consolidated Decision. 

14 
started receIvmg Plan benefits before nannal retirement. You claim that the Plan 

"provides no early retirement penalties for T & P disabled retirees." AB at 22. 

We disagree with your assertion concerning what the Plan provides. AI1 benefits 

referenced in Plan section 4.1, including the benefit determined under the disability 

retirement fonnula, are nonnal retirement benefits that provide "basic retirement 

income. " Furthermore, the Plan provides that each of the nonnal retirement benefits 

referenced in section 4.1 is to be adjusted by the reduction factors set forth in Plan 

sections 5.2 and 6.2 if commencement of Plan benefits begins before normal retirement. 

See Plan section 4.4 ("Amount of Nonnal Retirement Income"), which provides that a 

participant's normal retirement income amount equals the amount determined in section 

4.1 multiplied by the applicable benefit fonn adjustment factors specified in the Plan. 

The Plan's reduction factors for early commencement of Plan retirement benefits 

are set forth in Plan section 5.2 (which applies to early retirees) and section 6.2 (which 

applies to deferred-vested participants). Plan sections 5.2 and 6.2 each state that the 

benefit described in Plan section 4.4 ("Amount of Nonnal Retirement Income") is 

"reduced by .25% for each month after his 55th birthday by which his Benefit 

Commencement Date precedes his Nonnal Retirement Date and by .50% for each month 

by which his Benefit Commencement Date precedes his 55th birthday .... " Moreover, 

neither sections 5.2 or 6.2 of the Plan, nor any other section, contains language that 

would suggest that the Plan's factors for the early benefit commencement do not apply to 

participants who start their Plan retirement benefits early if their Nonnal Retirement 

Benefit happens to be under disability retirement fomlUla in section 4.1 (E). 

The Appeals Board also researched US Airways' benefit calculations for pilots 

who were T & P disabled and who retired or tenninated employment before age 60. We 

found. however, very few such individuals because (other than pilots who chose.to retire 

under the Early Retirement Incentive Program CHERIP"») nearly all T & P disabled pilots 

we identified retired at age 60. It appears that the reason that the number of such 

individuals is limited is because, aside from ERIP retirees, it generally was in the interest 

of a T & P disabled pilot to collect benefits under the Disability Plan until age 60 and to 

then (or later) retire under the Plan.f6 For example, since the Plan (unlike the Disability. 

Plan) reduced benefit payments for early commencement, a T & P disabled pilot's 

benefits before age 60 ordinarily would be greater under the Disability Plan than under 

the Plan. 

The Appeals Board did identify two appellants IL.--__ ----__ ~ ,---------,1 and one non-appellant who were T & P disabled and who retired before age 60. 

Before I f retirement from US Airways in December 2001 at age 59 and two 

months, he had received a monthly Disability Plan benefit of $8,311.23. After. 

retirement, US Airways continued to pay 1 1 combined benefits from the Plan 

26 As discussed in the Background section at pages 4-5 and footnote 9, a pilot must stop receiving an ABP 

disability benefit in order to start receiving a Plan benefit before nonna) retirement age (age 60). We also 

note that the Disability Plan provided for an offset for benefit amounts that were paid from the Plan. 

Disability Plan § 3.8 ("Integration of Benefits with Retirement Benefits"). 

15 
and from US Airways' non~ualified "Top Hat" plan that equaled what he had received 

from the Disability Plan (except for an adjustment for benefit fann). As is further 

detailed in his Enclosure, the amount US Airways paid I I from the Plan 

($7,999.53) was calculated under the Plan's basic (non-disabIity) formula~ with service 

projected to his Normal Retirement Date and no reduction for early benefit 

commencement. US Airways paid I I an initial Top Hat plan benefit of $355.58, 

which later was increased by COLAs to $517.12 from the Top Hat plan. The Appeals 

Board also found that the non-appellant, who retired in 2001 at age 55 10112, had his US 

Airways' benefits calculated in a similar manner tol I 

I I

US Airways used a different calculation method, however, for appellant I I 

'---. __ ~. I Iretired on January 1,2003, at age 56 and five months, when his 

(pre-retirement) Disability Plan benefit was $6~747.23. Like I I and the nonappellant described in the paragraph above, I 1(1) after retirement received 

combined benefits from the Plan, the Top Hat plan, and from the Disability Plan that 

equaled what he had received from the Disability Plan (except for an adjustment for 

benefit fonn); and (2) had his Plan benefit calculated under the basic (non-disability) 

forrnula~ rather than under the disability retirement fonnula (which would have provided 

a larger Plan-paid portion). I I Plan benefit, however, was based on service 

through his retirement date (rather than projected service to nonna! retirement) and 

included a 10.75% reduction for early benefit commencement. 

The Appeals Board was unable to reconcile the language in the Plan document 

with the US Airways calculations for these three individuals. We concluded, however, 

that because the Plan clearly provides for use of early benefit commencement factors, any 

US Airways' calculations that omit those factors are incorrect.27 

Accordingly, the Appeals Board conduded that the Plan's factors for the early 

benefit commencement apply to T & P disabled participants who begin receiving Plan 

retirement benefits before the Plan's normal retirement age (60). Also, for benefits in 

'1.7 Moreover, we concluded that US Airways' calculations for these individuals are entitled to little or no 

weight with respect to how Plan provisions should be interpreted. First, the calculations for Mr. Pilcher 

and the nonappellant are not conrstent with the calculation for 1 I The most significant 

discrepancy is that, fori US Airways used a reduction factor for early benefit commencement, 

but, for the other two individuals, a reduction factor was not applied. Also, the Appeals Board was unable 

to determine a coherent rationale for US Airways' Plan disparate benefit calculations for these individuals. 

Although in all three cases US Airways had used Top Hat funds (or other corporate funds paid through 

the Disability Plan) in combination with Plan funds to preserve the benefit amounts the participants 

previously had received from the Disability Plan, PBGe carmol continue to preserve those benefits. PBGC 

is not responsible for the Top Hat plan or for US Airways' other corporate obligations, and, accordingly, 

PBGC is unable to provide benefits that US Airways previously had paid from sources outside of the Plan. 

Finally. for a fourth T & P disabled participant, appellant I Iwho retired at age 60, U.S. 

Airways administrators determined the Plan could provide only the ordinary (non-disability) benefit, and 

the remainder of the 4.l(E) benefit would be provided from the Top Hat plan. See Enclosure 25. 

16 
PC3, the early benefit commencement factor applicable to a benefit starting at DOPT-3 

(j.e., on April 1, 2000) j s appJied in detennining the PC3 benefit amount. 

Disability Claim #5: PBGC's Application ofthe Disability MOB 

Your appeal asserts, at AB 22, that Plan retirees with SSA Disability awards are 

entitled to have their PBGC guaranteed benefits calculated based on the age-65 

"Disability MGB" in ERISA section 4022. 

As we stated previously, PBGC, before issuing Benefit Detenninations, 

concluded that the Plan's disability retirement formula in section 4.1(E) is a "benefit 

payable by reason of disability" for purposes of the Disability MGB in ERISA section 

4022(b)(3). We further note that PBGC has adopted a "Disability Benefit" policy 

(Enclosure 2) that, among other things, interprets how PBGC will apply ERISA's 

Disability MGB provision. Section D.2(a) of the Disability Policy provides: 

The Disability Maximum Guarantee applies, regardless of retirement type 

... , where the participant meets the requirements. .. for entitlement to' 

the plan's disability benefit on or before DaPT and demonstrates to the 

satisfaction of PBGC that the Social Security Administration has 

determined that he or she satisfied the SSA disability definition on or 

before the earlier of (a) the date of retirement or (b) DOPT. 

The Disability Policy accordingly states that the Disability MOB generally is applied to 

participants who meet both their pension plan's requirements for a disability retirement 

benefit and the SSA's disability standard as ofthe dates specified in the policy. 

PBGC thus has concluded, based on its application of the Disability Policy to the 

Plan, that a pilot qualifies for the Disability MOB if, effective as of the earlier of 

retirement or DOPT, he or she: (1) had been or was receiving disability benefits under the 

Additional Benefit Programs; (2) was T & P disabled; and (3) had been detennined by 

SSA to be permanently disabled. For example, PBOC detennined that appellant Daniel 

Miller (whose benefits are discussed in more detail in his Enclosure 25) had met these 

conditions, and. therefore, the Disability MGB applies to his benefits. 

PBGC also applied the Disability MGB to appellant Robert Boyd's benefits, but 

since he (unlike Daniel Miller) has a larger benefit in PC3, he will receive the larger PC3 

benefit amount. Although PBOC's benefit detennination'did not provide the Disability 

MOB to Mr. Oakey (whose benefits are discussed in your appeal), the Appeals Board has 

corrected this error, as is explained in his Enclosure. 

17 
Disability Claim #6: The Request that PBGe Correct Benefits for Disabled Lump Sum 

Retirees 

Your appeal asks that PBGC re-evaluate the status of any T & P disabled pilot 

who received a lump sum distribution prior to DOPT and states that "any sums due and 

owing should be paid." AB at 23. For this claim, your appeal refers to a list of "100% 

lump sum retirees" that was provided to PBGC before PBGC's issuance of benefit 

determinations. 

Of the 32 appellants whose benefits are addressed in this supplemental decision, 

none received a 100% lump sum retirement benefit. Since this Appeals Board's decision 

applies only to these 32 appellants, we will not address the benefits of any T & P disabled 

pilot who may have received a 100% lump sum distribution. As a general matter of 

policy and fairness, PBGe will always review any new, specific evidence submitted by a 

participant or their representative in support of a claim that their benefit is wrongly 

calculated. If you are aware of participants with such new and specific evidence, please 

advise them accordingly. 

DECISION 

Having applied Plan provISIOns, ERISA, other applicable law, and PBGC 

regulations and olides to the facts in this case, the Board decided that four of the 32 

appellants 

I I will receive new benefit detenninations, with a new 45-day appeal 

right, for the reasons detailed in their respective Enclosures?8 Because these appellants 

will receive new Benefit Determinations, this decision is not yet the fina1 Agency action 

in their respective cases. 

disability issue: 

Enclosures: 

Finally, for the remaining 13 appellants not named above, their appeal on the 

disability issue is denied and our decision constitutes PBGC's final Agency action with 

respect to their appeal. 

28 In the case ofl I, this is a decision only on his disability claim. 

August 5, 2008 appeal remains open vtith respect to all other issues. 

18 
For the 20 appellants for whom this decision represents the final Agency action 

an your appeal, they may seek review of this decision in an appropriate federal district 

court. If any appellant needs other infonnation regarding his or her PBGe benefits, he or 

she may contact PBGC's Authorized Plan Representative at 1-800-400-7242. 

Sincerely, 

William D. Ellis 

Appeals Board Member 

The 34 Enclosures are listed on the following page 

19 
34 Enclosures: 

1. Listing of the 30 Appellants promised a Disability decision in our February 29, 2008 

decision 

2. PBGC Operating Policy Manual 5.9-1 "Disability Benefit" Policy, dated 08/20/03 

Specific Findings by the Appeals Board are at the Following Enclosures: