2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-7-2009 

# Ro s a nn D el so v

. T r u s t ees of Ret P l a n H ourl

y E m P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ock e t N o . 08-3474

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du . R e c omme nde d C it a t ion
" R os a nn D e l s o v

. T r us t e e s of R e t P l a n H ourly E m " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1055. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1055H onor abl e J ane A . R es t ani , C hi ef J udge, U . S. C our t of I nt er nat i onal T r ade, s i t t i ng * b y d e s ig n a tio n . NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 08- 3474
R O S A N N D E L S O , I ndi vi dual l y A nd A s E xecut or O f The E s t at e of J ames D el s o, A ppel l ant
v. T RU S T E E S OF T HE RE T I RE M E NT P L AN F OR T HE HOUR L Y

EM P LOYEE S OF MERCK & CO . , I NC.
APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT

FOR TH E DI STRI CT O F NEW J ERSEY ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 04- cv- 03009) D i s t r i ct J udge: H onor abl e A nne E. T hom ps on Subm i t t ed U nder T hi r d C i r cui t L A R 34. 1( a)

J une 23, 2009
B efor e: B A R R Y , SM I T H , C i r cui t J udges , and R E ST A N I , J udge * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J ul y 7, 2009)

OP I NI ONIn order t o recei ve a lum p sum pay m ent of ret i rem ent benefit s, spou sal con sent m ust 1 also b e d eli v ere d to the co m p an y as p art of the a p p li ca ti o n . It is un d ispu ted th at M r. D e ls o ’s a p p lic a tio n d id n o t in c lu d e th is re q u ir e d c o n s e n t. -2- B A R R Y , C i r cui t J udge Ros ann De l s o a

ppe a l s the or de r

of the Di s tr i c t

Court gr ant i ng s umm ary

judgm e nt in f av o r o f an E R IS A p lan ad m in istrato r o n h er claim , b ro u g h t p u rsu an t to 2 9 U .S .C . § 1 1 3 2 (a)(1 )(B ), to reco v er retirement b en ef its alleg ed ly

o w edto h er d eceasedh u sb an d
. Beca use the plan adm inis tr at or’s deci si on to deny the a pp li cati on fo r benefit s was no t an abus e of di s c r e t i on on the undi s put e d fa c t s be for e i t , we wi l l a ffi rm the or de r of the D istrict C o u rt. I. J a m e s De l s o wa s an hour l y e m pl oy e e a t Me r c k & Co. whe n he di e d s udde nl y on D ecem b er 2 6 , 2 0 0 2 , at 6 :1 4 A .M . O n D ecem b er 2 4 , 2 0 0 2 , w h ile h o sp italized , M r. D elso ha d s i gne d al e tt e r - a

ppl i c a t i on de c l ar i ng hi s i nt e nt i on t o go on di s a bi l i ty r e t i r e m e nt i mm e di a t e l y

and r e que s t i ng al um

p s um pay m e nt of hi s pe ns i on unde r

the Re t i r e m e nt P lan f o r th e H o u rly

E m p lo y ees o f

M erck& C o . (th e “P lan ”), an E R IS A -g o v ern edp lan
. Gu y Flem ing, Mr. Del so’s un ion repre se ntat ive, deli vere d the applic at ion to M er ck Hum an Re s our c e s on De c e m be r 26, 2002 a t

4: 25 P. M. , a ft e r

Mr . De l s o’ s de a th. The Pl an i s s i l e nt

a s t o the pr oc e dur e by

whi c h apart i c i pant

m ake s an a

ppl i c a t i on f o r retirem en t b en ef

its, b u t th e su mm ary

p lan d escrip tio n p ro v id es: Y o u r co m

p letedretirem en t ap p licatio n (in clu d in g all req u iredco n sen ts ) 1-3-

m us t be de l i ve r e d t o Em

pl oy e e Se rvi c e s , or

any othe r e m pl oy e e or departm ent des ignate d b y the Hou rl y

Pension C omm itte e, wh il e you ar e still aliv e an dp rio r to y o u r term in atio n o f em p lo y m en t. (A p p . at 2 8 4 .) Th e Plan is a dm inis te re d b y the Hou rl y

Pension C omm itte e ( the “ Co mm itte e” ), whi c h i s ve s t e d wi th “ a l l powe r s ne c e s s ary for the s upe rvi s i on and a dm i ni s tr a t i on of the ope r a t i on of thi s Pl an” i nc l udi ng the powe r t o “ e na c t s uc h r ul e s and r e gul a t i ons c ons i s t e nt wi th thi s Pl an a s i t

m ay c ons i de r de s i r abl e for

the c onduc t

of i t s bus i ne s s and fo r the adm inis tr at ion o f this Plan.” ( Ap p. at 99 .) Th e Plan als o g rants t he Co mm itte e the author i ty

“ t o c ons tr

ue thi s e nt i r e Pl an, i t s c ons tr uc t i on the r e of t o be fi na l and
co n clu siv e,” an d“to d eterm in e all q u estio n s af f ectin g elig ib ility

o f an y E m p lo y ee to part i c i pa t e i n thi s Pl an. ” I d. L o n g p rio r to M r. D elso ’s d eath , th e C o mm ittee (in clu d in g M r. F lem in g , a Comm i tt e e m e m

be r ) ha d de ba t e d the i s s ue of de l i ve ry and r e c e i pt

of di s abi l i ty

r e t i r e m e nt b e n e f i t s a p p l i c a t i o n s , an d , i n 1 9 9 7 , th e C o mmi tt e e p a s s e dar e s o l u t i o n a s t o w h i c h f o rms of r e c e i pt woul d be a c c e pt abl e for

an a ppl i c a t i on t o be c ons i de r e d “ r e c e i ve d by the Co m pany .” Th e following m etho ds were deem ed ac ce ptable : ( 1) re ce ipt by Em ploy ee Servic es prior t o the em

ploy ee ’s death b y

m ai l, deli very , or fax (three fax n um bers were ag reedup o n ), (2 ) U .S . P o stal S erv ice m ail to E m p lo y ee S erv ices, p o stm ark edp rio r to de a th, and ( 3) r e c e i pt

by aHum an Re s our c e s pe r s on de s i gna t e d a t as i t e t o a c c e pt

r e c e i pt o f th e ap p licatio n s, p rio r to d eath
. On Marc h 6 , 200 3, the Comm itte e denie d M r. Dels o’s a pp li cati on (now pu rs ued-4-

b y M rs. D elso ) b ecau se it w as n o t receiv edb y th e co m p an y p rio r to h is d eath . M rs. De l s o a ppe a l e d, a s ki ng the Comm i tt e e t o r e c ons i de r and ar gui ng tha t , be c aus e of the C h ristm as h o lid ay , sh e h adn o w ay to co n tact th e co m

p an y p rio r to h er h u sb an d ’s d eath
and tha t s he ha d done a l l s he c oul d do. The Comm i tt e e de ni e d the a ppe a l on June 12, 2 0 0 3 . M rs. D elso th en f

iledsu it in th e D istrict C o u rt p u rsu an t to E R IS A ’s civ il
e nfor c e m e nt

pr ovi s i on i n 29 U. S. C. § 1132( a ) ( 1) ( B)
. On Jul y 25, 2008, a ft e r

de c l i ni ng to util iz e a

heightened st andard of

re view and con cl ud ing that t he Co m m itte e did no t a ct ar bi tr ar i l y and c a pr i c i ous l y

i n de nyi ng the c l a i m

gi ve n the undi s put e d fa c t tha t the applic at ion w as no t del iver ed to the c om pany prior t o M r. Dels o’s death, t he Distri ct C o u rt g ran tedsu m

m ary j u d g m en t. M rs. D elso n o w ap p eals.

II. Th e Di s tr i c t

Co ur t ha d j ur i s di c t i onpu r s uant t o 2 9 U . S. C. § 1 13 2( e ) ( 1) , andwe have ju ri sdic ti on pu rs uant to 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1. Ou r r evie w o f the Co urt’ s l egal
co n clu sio n s is p len ary , an dw e ap p ly th e sam e stan d ardo f

rev iew th at th e C o u rt sh o u ld h av e ap p lied . E state o f

S ch w in g v . T h e L illy

H ealth P lan , 5 6 2 F .3 d5 2 2 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 9 ). As the part i e s r e c ogni z e , the Supr e m e Court r e c e nt l y c l ar i fi e d the s t andar d of r e vi e w for
c a s e s br ought

pur s uant t o 29 U. S. C. § 1132( a ) ( 1) ( B) i n Me tr opol i t an Li fe I ns ur anc e Co. v. Glenn, 12 8 S .Ct. 23 43 (200 8), and we have adju st ed ou r s tand ar d o f revie w a c c or di ngl y . Se e Sc hwi ng, 562 F. 3d a t 525. Thi s s l i ght

c l ar i fi c a t i on i n the ERI SA-5-

re view fram ework d oes not si gn ific antl y im pact ou r r evie w in this c as e. Mrs. Dels o argues that the “r ec ei pt re qu ir em ent, ” that i s, the r equire m ent that an a ppl i c a t i on for

r e t i r e m e nt

be ne fi t s be r e c e i ve d by

Me r c k pr i or

t o an e m pl oy e e ’ s de a th,
w as u n en f

o rceab le b ecau se it w as co n tain edin th e su mm ary p lan d escrip tio n an dn o t in th e P lan itself

an db ecau se it co n stitu tedan u n reaso n ab le in terp retatio n o f th e P lan
. ERI SA r e qui r e s pl an a dm i ni s tr a t or s t o furni s h a“ s umm ary pl an de s c r i pt i on” (“S P D ”) to all p articip an ts an db en ef iciaries. 2 9 U .S .C . § 1 0 2 2 (a). T h e S P D m u st co n tain b asic in f

o rm atio n ab o u t th e p lan , in clu d in g , “th e p ro cedu res to b e f o llo w edin pres enti ng cl ai m s for benefits un der the plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1 02 2(b). W ri tt en plan doc um e nt s and SPDs ar e “ the s t a t ut or i l y e s t a bl i s he d m e ans of i nform i ng part i c i pant s and be ne fi c i ar i e s of the t e rm s of the i r pl an and i t s be ne fi t s . ” I n r e Uni s y s Cor p. Re t i r e e Me d. Benefits ER ISA L it ig., 58 F.3d 89 6, 90 2 (3d Cir. 19 95 ). W e ne e d not

de c i de whe the r

the SPD i n thi s c a s e s houl d be c ons i de r e d a s part of the “ do cum ents and instr um ents go verning the plan” that ERISA fidu ci ar ie s are re qu ir ed t o fol l ow, s e e 29 U. S. C. § 1104( a ) ( 1) ( D) , be c aus e , r e gar dl e s s of how we c har a c t e r i z e the
re ce ipt r equire m ent, the Comm itte e did no t a bu se it s dis cr et ion b y

im po si ng it : t

he Plan
e xpl i c i t l y gr ant e d the Comm i tt e e the author i ty t o c r e a t e s uc h ar e qui r e m e nt and the req u irem en t is n o t an u n reaso n ab le in terp retatio n o f th e P lan
. As disc usse d abo ve, the Plan prov ides that the Comm itte e i s t o h ave “ al l pow er s ne c e s s ary for the s upe rvi s i on and a dm i ni s tr a t i on of the ope r a t i on of thi s Pl an” i nc l udi ngM rs . De l s o ar gue s tha t the Comm i tt e e ha s a

ppl i e d the r e c e i pt

r e qui r e m e nt 2 i nc ons i s t e nt l y , ac ont e nt i on tha t i s be l i e d by

the r e c or d. The onl y

ar guabl y i nc ons i s t e nt c a s e s he c i t e s i n whi c h be ne fi t s we r e gr ant e d by the Comm i tt e e i s ac a s e whe r e r e c e i pt oc c urr e d a ft e r

the e m pl oy e e ’ s de a th wa s de c i de d l ong be for e the Comm i tt e e ’ s 1997 r e s ol ut i on and i nvol ve d the e rr or of am e s s e nge r . Thi s one i ns t anc e i s har dl y s uffi c i e nt to dem on strate inconsis te nt deci si on m aking, part ic ular ly wh en the other

ca se s dis covered by Mr s . De l s o e vi de nc e the Comm i tt e e ’ s e ve n- hande d and c ons i s t e nt a ppl i c a t i on of the re ce ipt r equire m ent. Mo re ov er , we have held that argum ents re garding sim il ar ly si tuat ed em p lo y ees “sh o u ldb e g iv en m in im al, if an y , w eig h t” in claim s d eterm in atio n s, b ecau se the fac t t hat a dm inis tr at ors m ay

have, i n the past , e rr on eously grante d b enefit s und er

an ERI SA pl an doe s not

m e an tha t

the y ar e bound i n “ as tr a i ght

ja c ke t r e qui r i ng the m

t o do so f o rev er.” V itale v . L atro b e A rea H o sp ., 4 2 0 F .3 d2 7 8 , 2 8 6 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 5 ). -6- the powe r t o e na c t r ul e s and r e gul a t i ons de s i r abl e for a dm i ni s tr a t i on of the Pl an and the authority to constr ue the t er m s of the Plan. When a plan adm inis tr at or is grante d such b ro adau th o rity

to in terp ret an E R IS A p lan , “w e w ill d istu rb its in terp retatio n o n ly if its
r e a di ng of the pl an doc um e nt s wa s unr e a s onabl e . ” Moe nc h v. Robe rt s on, 62 F. 3d 553, 5 6 6 (3 dC ir. 1 9 9 5 ); see F iresto n e T ire & Rub b er C o . v . B ru ch , 4 8 9 U .S . 1 0 1 , 1 1 1 (1 9 8 9 ). I n thi s c a s e , the i nt e r

pr e t a t i on wa s r e a s onabl e : the Comm i tt e e ha s c ons i s t e nt l y a ppl i e d the
r e c e i pt r e qui r e m e nt , i t

doe s not c onfl i c t wi th the Pl an, and i t

i s c ons i s t e nt

wi th both the 2 Pl an and ERI SA’ s s t a t

ut ory pr ovi s i ons . Se e Moe nc h, 62 F. 3d a t 566. M rs. D elso arg u es th at th e receip t req u irem en t co n stitu tes an u n reaso n ab le i nt e r pr e t a t i on of the Pl an be c aus e i t c onfl i c t s wi th the m a i n Pl an doc um e nt and
c ons t i t ut e s an i m

pe rm i s s i bl e “ r e duc t i on of r i ght s and be ne fi t s . ” Se e Che rry v. Bi om e di c a l Appl i c a t i ons of Pa
. , I nc . , 397 F. Supp. 2d 609, 615 ( E. D. Pa . 2005) ( hol di ng th at “[ an S P D ] m ay

b e treatedas am en d in g a p lan to th e ex ten t th at it creates addi t i onal-7-

r i ght s or c ove r a ge , ” but

not whe n i t r e duc e s the r i ght s or

c ove r a ge ava i l abl e unde r the plan (e m ph as is in original )) . I n cas es wh er e an S PD conf li ct s with a m ai n p lan doc um e nt , we or di nar i l y

e nfor c e the t e rm s of the SPD. Bur s t e i n v. Re t . Ac c ount Pl an for Em ploy ee s of A ll egheny

Heal th Ed uc. and Rese ar ch Fo un d., 334 F.3d 36 5, 38 1 (3d Cir. 2003)
. As the Di s tr i c t

Court c orr e c t l y c onc l ude d, howe ve r , the SPD i n thi s c a s e doe s not c onfl i c t wi th the m a i n Pl an doc um e nt , whi c h i s s i l e nt a s t o how a

ppl i c a t i ons m ay

be pr e s e nt e d t o the c om

pany . And unl i ke i n the c a s e s c i t e d by Mr s . De l s o, the l angua ge of th e S P D in th is case d o es n o t co n stitu te a redu ctio n o f rig h ts o r b en ef

its; it m erely

sets forth the pr oc e dur e s t o be fol l owe d for pr e s e nt a t i on of ac l a i m , a s i t i s r e qui r e d t o do by statu te. H av in g estab lish edth at th e C o mm ittee’s receip t req u irem en t co n stitu tes a r e a s onabl e i nt e r

pr e t a t i on of the Pl an, we m us t c ons i de r whe the r the a ppl i c a t i on and
re qu ir ed spou sa l c on se nt were deli vere d w hile Mr. Del so was s ti ll al ive. It is un disputed tha t , pr i or t o hi s a ppl i c a t i on, the Comm i tt e e r e s ol ve d t o i nt e r pr e t “ de l i ve r e d” t o m e an any of fo ur m etho ds, i ncluding fax and m ai l by po stm ar k, and M rs . Del so has not ar gu ed that the s e m e thods ar e unr e a s onabl e . I t i s a l s o undi s put e d tha t

Mr . De l s o’ s a

ppl i c a t i on and th e req u iredsp o u sal co n sen t w ere n o t d eliv eredb y an y o f th ese m eth o d s p rio r to h is d eath . T h eref

o re, th e C o mm ittee d idn o t ab u se its d iscretio n w h en it d en iedh is claim
. Th is conclusi on , we note, do es no t c hang e e ven w er e we t o con si der, as additi on al f acto rs, M rs. D elso ’s alleg atio n s o f co n f lict o f in terest, b ias, an dp ro cedu ral irreg u larity
.-8-

S ee S ch w in g 5 6 2 F .3 dat 5 2 5 . III. F o r th e reaso n s statedab o v e, w e w ill af f irm th e o rd er o f

th e D istrict C o u rt.