From: Michael Quirk [mailto:mquirk@pillsburycoleman.com] 

Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 4:50 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB39

By E-Mail: Office of Regulations and Interpretations,

Employee Benefits Security Administration

Room M-5655

U.S. Dept. of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue NW

Washington D.C. 20210

Re: Proposal to Delay Implementation of Claims Procedure Regulations for Plans Providing 

Disability Benefits Examination

RIN No.: 1210-AB39

Regulation: 29 C.F.R. §2560.503-1

Dear Deputy Assistant Secretary Hauser,

My name is Michael Quirk and I am an attorney at Pillsbury & Coleman, LLP, an insurance 

policyholder law firm. Over the past two decades, our firm has represented thousands of 

policyholders in insurance benefit litigation. A large number of those cases involve disability 

benefit claims under ERISA-governed disability plans.

I write in response to the Employee Benefits Security Administration’s (“EBSA”) proposal to 

delay implementation of the claims procedure requirements applicable to ERISA-covered 

employee benefit plans that provide disability benefits, 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1. 

EBSA’s proposal to delay finalized regulations raises serious transparency issues. EBSA 

finalized rules only after an extensive notice and comment period that yielded an overwhelming 

amount of comments from various stakeholders including the insurance industry. At that time, 

many of industry comments suggested that there were cost issues associated with implementing 

the rules. However, those comments were speculative and not supported by relevant 

data. Nonetheless, when the industry commenters asked for more time to adjust to the new rules, 

EBSA agreed to significantly delay the effective date.

The Administrative Procedure Act’s (“APA”) notice and comment requirements “serve the 

salutary purposes of (1) ‘ensur[ing] that agency regulations are tested via exposure to diverse 

public comment, (2) ensur[ing] fairness to affected parties, and (3) [giving] affected parties an 

opportunity to develop evidence in the record to support their objections to the rule and thereby 

enhance the quality of judicial review.’” AFL–CIO v. Chao, 496 F.Supp.2d 76, 91 (D.D.C. 

2007) (citing Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Mine Safety and Health Admin., 407 

F.3d 1250, 1259 (D.C. Cir. 2005)). 
EBSA’s current proposal obstructs the APA’s goal of fairness to all parties. We are now told by 

EBSA at the eleventh-hour that other industry input is being relied upon— information that 

could have been contributed during the proper notice and comment period, but was not. 

One cannot assume the insurance industry is correct in its estimate that premiums for group 

disability benefits would increase by 5-8%. Nonetheless, to the extent that premiums would be 

increased to avoid the industry's current standard of illusory coverage, ERISA participants would 

gladly accept higher premiums in return for greater regulatory protection. To the extent the 

Department thinks a delay is needed to prevent such an increase, this needs to be reconsidered, as 

the costs will not outweigh the overall benefit to insureds.

Do not delay the effective date of the regulations. It would undermine the sense of trust and 

fairness that should inhere in this rule-making process. See Chao, 496 F.Supp.2d at 91.

Very Truly Yours,

Michael James Quirk, Esq.

--

MICHAEL QUIRK

ASSOCIATE

PILLSBURY & COLEMAN, LLP

THE TRANSAMERICA PYRAMID

600 MONTGOMERY STREET, 31ST FLOOR

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111

TEL. 415-433.8000 FAX 415.433.4816

MQUIRK@PILLSBURYCOLEMAN.COM WWW.PILLSBURYCOLEMAN.COM 

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, 

disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original 

message. Thank you.