Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation PBee 1200K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005-4026 UI-EMIUNLI 

Re: r 

OCT 2 8 2004 

bmith Corona Corporation I 

Salaried Employees Retirement Plan, Case No: 192864 

The Appeals Board reviewed your appeal of ~BGC benefit determination, 

which was dated September 3,2002 and remailed April 27,2004. For the reasons stated below, 

the Board changed PBGC's determination by finding thatrplis Totally and Permanently 

Disabled under the terms of the Plan. As a result, she is entitled to additional credit for service 

through the Plan's termination date (August 2,2000). PBGC's Insurance Operations Department, 

the organization responsible for determining and paying benefits, will issue rpla new 

determination of her disability amount and annuity start date, with a new 45-day appeal right. 

PBGC's Benefit Determination and Your Apeal 

applied to the Plan for a Disability Retirement around March 10, 1998, which 

is before the Plan terminated and PBGC became trustee. L= included with her application 

a copy of a May 10, 1996 Notice of Decision from the oc~ ecurity Administration, which said 

that she became disabled under their rules as of July 15, 1993. The Retirement Committee denied 

((request in a May 11, 1998 letter signed by Gary 1. Lynch, Smith Corona's Vice 

President - Treasurer. You appealed the Retirement Committee's decision on her behalf on 

August 7, 1998. 

PBGC's September 3, 2002 benefit determination said thatwas entitled to 

$358.39 per month if paid as a Straight Life Annuity starting November 1,2019, or to a reduced 

amount as early as November 1, 2004. In response to your inquiry, PBGC remailed its 

determination to her correct address on April 27, 2004. On June 1, 2004, ou wrote PBGC 

saying you had "filed an appeal pursuant to company procedures for -l[now using 

to receive retirement from Smith Corona." You also asked that PBGC "advise you of the 

status of that appeal. " Because you andrplbelieved your unanswered 1998 appeal to the 

Retirement Committee was still under consideration, the Board accepted your June 1,2004 status 

request as a timely appeal of PBGC's remailed benefit determination. 
Background 

The Smith Corona Plan terminated, effective August 2, 2000, without sufficient assets to 

provide all benefits PBGC guarantees under Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security 

Act (ERISA). The terms of the Plan, the provisions of ERISA and PBGC regulations and policies 

determineentitlement to a guaranteed benefit. PBGC's regulations require that a 

participant must satisfy the conditions of the plannecessary to establish the right to receive the 

benefit on or before the earlier of the date the participant's employment ended or the date the plan 

terminated (see 29 Code of Federal Regulations 554022.3, 4022.4(a)(3)). 

The files available to the Appeals Board contain the following information for71 

which you did not contest in your appeal: (1) date of birth -1 (2) date of hire - 

March 8, 1973, (3) last day worked - August 13, 1993, and (4) date of termination of 

employment - June 3, 1994. Her normal retirement date is November I, 2019 (the first of the 

month following her 65" birthday) and her earliest retirement date for a reduced benefit is 

November 1, 2004. 

Plan's Disabilitv Provisions 

Section 6.1 of the most recent Plan document (effective January 1, 1994 and identical to 

the previous Plan document, effective January 1, 1989) provides that -- 

If a Member who has 15 or more years of Service shall become Totally and 

Permanently Disabled . . . prior to his Normal Retirement Date he shall be 

deemed to be on an Authorized Leave of Absence and shall continue to accrue 

Credited Service during the period prior to his Normal Retirement Date that he 

remains Totally and Permanently Disabled. 

For purposes of section 6.1, Total and Permanently Disabled means "a physical or mental 

condition which renders a Member disabled to the extent he is eligible for and receiving Social 

Security disability benefits. " Section 6.1 specifically excludes from this definition disabilities 

arising from (1) drunkenness or addiction to narcotics, (2) engagement in a criminal enterprise, 

(3) self-inflicted injuries or (4) service in the Armed Forces. Neither you nor the Retirement 

Committee claimed that any of these exclusions applied to Further, all parties agreed 

that she completed at least 15 years of Service. 

The files also show thatapplied for Social Security Disability benefits on 

February 23, 1995. James C. Johnson Esq., an Administrative Law Judge for the Social Security 

Administration, explained in a decision dated May 10, 1996 thatis "unable to engage 

in substantial gainful activity on a sustained basis due to her symptoms of depression and 

anxiety . . . [and] has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since July 15, 1993." Judge 

Johnson concluded she was disabled under the Social Security Act commencing July 15, 1993. 
1 1 filed for a benefit under the Plan's disability provisions around March 10, 1998. 

The Plan's Retirement Committee accepted her application, but after review concluded that she 

was not eligible because she was not disabled when her service with Smith Corona ended. The 

Committee's May 11, 1998 decision said that it "does not agree with the Administrative Law 

Judge's finding that [she] became unable to work on July 15, 1993 and had not engaged in 

substantial gainful activity since that date." 

Your August 7, 1998 appeal to the Retirement Committee said that the Committee was 

required by Plan section 6.1 to provide a disability benefit to a participant with at least 15 years 

of Service who was eligible for and began receiving Social Security disability payments on account 

of a disability that occurred while the participant was an active Plan member, provided none of 

the exclusions applied. You said that the Plan did not permit the Committee to "second-guess" 

a Social Security Administration finding of disability. 

We reviewed the Plan provisions and agree with you that a Social Security Administration 

disability award is both a necessary and a sufficient condition for meeting the Plan's definition of 

Total and Permanent Disability under section 6.1. Because (1) the Social Security Administration 

determined that1 was disabled under their rules before her employment ended, (2) none 

of the four exclusions described in Plan section 6.1 applied to and (3) she had more 

than 15 years of Service, we further find that she is entitled to accrue additional service under 

section 6.1. Please note, however, that PBGC cannot take into account service after a Plan's 

termination date (see the first paragraph on page 2 of this letter). 

Decision 

Having applied the law, the rovisions of the Plan and PBGC policy to the facts in this 

case, the Appeals Board found that is Totally and Permanently Disabled as defined 

by the Plan. As a result, she is entitled to additional credit for service through August 2, 2000, 

the date the Plan terminated. This is the Agency's final decision on this matter and she may, if 

she wishes, seek court review. 

PBGC's Insurance Operations Department will send a new determination of 

her benefit amount and annuity start date, with a new 45-day appeal right. If you 01-1 

have questions, please call PBGC's Customer Contact Center at 1-800-400-7242. 

Sincerely, 

Linda M. Mini 

Member, Appeals Board