FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ar c h 13, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK

Honora ble J ohn F. Na

ng le, Senior U.S. District Judg e for the Easter

n District of * Missouri, sitting by

designation. [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

_____________________ N o. 06- 10241

____________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -013 05 -C V -H S -W H E R M A N J . G R E E N , o n b e h a lf o f h im s e lf a n d a c la s s o f

p e r s o n s s im ila r ly s itu a te d , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s M I C H A E L H . H O L L A N D , MAR T Y D . HU DS ON , STEV EN F. SCH A A B, B . V . H Y L E R , a s T ru s te e s o f

th e U n ite d M in e W o r k e r s P e n s io n T ru s t, U N I T E D M I N E W O R K E R S O F A M E R I C A 1 9 7 4 P E N S I O N T R U S T , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

_______________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e r n D i s tr i c to f A l a b a ma

_________________________ ( M ar c h 13, 2007) B ef ore B IR C H and P R Y O R , C i rc ui tJudg es , and N A N G L E , D i stri ctJudg e. *2

B IR C H , C i rc ui tJudg e: P l a i nt i f f - A ppe l l a ntH e r m a n G r e e n br oughtthi s a c t i on pur s ua ntt o the E m pl oy e e R e t i r e m e ntI nc om e S e c ur i ty A c tof 1974 ( “ E R I S A ” ) , 29 U . S . C . § 1001 e t . s e q. , se eki ng t o rec ov erac crued i nt er es ton hi s di sabi l i ty benef i t s, w hi ch w er e del ay ed bu teventual l y pai d u nd erhi s pensi on pl an. T he di stri ctcourtgrant ed s um m a r y j udgm e nti n f

a vorof de f e nda nt s - appe l l e e s , the T rus t e e s of the pl a n, the pensi on T rust , and t he pl an i t se l f. G re en no w appeal s thatdeci si on , ar gu i ng that th e d istrict co u rt ac ted im p ro p er ly in g ra n ti n g su m m ar y ju d g m en t o n all o f G re en ’s c l a i m s . U pon r e vi e w , w e c onc l ude tha t : ( 1) G r e e n’ s a t t e m ptt o a l l e ge a c a us e of a c tio n f o rin te r e s t u n d e rE R I S A § 5 0 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) , 2 9 U .S .C . § 1 1 3 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) , is cl ea rl y pre cl ud ed by ou r dec i si on i n F l i ntv. A B B , Inc. , 33 7 F . 3d 13 26 (11t h C i r. 20 03 ); and (2) because G re en has notpres ent ed evi dence thatthe appel l ee s v io la te d E R I S A o rb r e a c h e d th e te r m s o f th e p e n s io n p la n in p r o c e s s in g h is di s a bi l i ty c l a i m , he i s note nt i t l e d t o i nt e r e s tpur s ua ntt o E R I S A § 502( a ) ( 3) , 29 U .S .C . § 1 1 3 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) . A c c o r d in g ly , w e A F F I R M th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t. I . B AC KG RO UN D T he fa ct s of G re en’ s c as e a re un di sput ed. G re en w as em pl oyed as a c oal m i ner w i th Ji m W at er s R es ou rc es , Inc. , i n T usca l oo sa , A l abam a. A s a n em pl oyee , G r e e n w a s of

f e r e d e m pl oy e e be ne f

i t s thr ough the U ni t e d M i ne W or ke r s of A m e r ic a 1 9 7 4 P e n s io n T ru s t ( “th e T ru s t” ) , a n e m p lo y e e b e n e f it tru s t in c lu d e d w ith3

a num be rof

othe rtrus t s i n the U ni t e d M i ne W or ke r s of A m e r i c a H e a l th a nd R e t i r e m e ntF unds . T he T rus ti s a dm i ni s t e r e d by appe l l e e s H ol l a nd, H uds on, S ch aab , an d H yl er (co l l ect i v el y, “ th e T ru st ees”). T h e b en efi t s th atth e T ru st pr ovi de s t o e m pl oy e e s a r e s e tf or th a tl e ngth i n the U ni t e d M i ne W or ke r s of A m e r ic a P e n s io n P la n o f 1 9 7 4 ( th e “P la n ” ) , w h ic h is s u b je c t to E R I S A . Th e Pl a n p r o v i d e s a mo n th l y d i s a b i l i ty b e n e f i tf o re mp l o y e e s w h o b e c o me to ta lly d is a b le d a s a r e s u lt o f a m in e a c c id e n t. T h e P la n s ta te s , in p e r tin e n t p a r t, th a t a p a r tic ip a n t w ith a s p e c if ie d n u m b e ro f

y e a r s o f s e r v ic e w h o “b e c o m e s to ta lly d i sab l ed as a resu l to f a m i n e acciden t ” sh al l “ b e el i g i b l e fo r a p en si o n w h i l e so d is a b le d .” R 1 - 3 3 , E x h . A a t 7 . T h e P la n f u r th e rp r o v id e s a d e f

in itio n o f “to ta lly di sabl ed”: A P a r tic ip a n t s h a ll b e c o n s id e r e d to b e to ta lly d is a b le d o n ly if

b y r e a s o n o f

s u c h a c c id e n t s u c h P a r tic ip a n t is s u b s e q u e n tly d e te r m in e d to b e e lig ib le f o rS o c ia l S e c u r ity D is a b ility I n s u r a n c e [ S S D I ] B e n e f its u n d e rT itle I I o f

th e S o c ia l S e c u r ity A ctor i t s s ucce ss or. I d . T h u s , in o r d e rto b e e lig ib le f o ra d is a b ility p e n s io n b e n e f it u n d e rth e P la n , a cl ai m antm ustes t abl i sh: (1) thathe w as i nv ol ved i n a m i ne ac ci dent ; (2) thathe has b een aw ard ed S S D I b en efi t s, th u s co n cl u si v el y est ab l i sh i n g th ath e h as a d i sab i l i ty; a n d ( 3 ) th a t th e m in e a c c id e n t p r o x im a te ly c a u s e d , o rw a s s u b s ta n tia lly r e s p o n s ib le f or , the di s a bi l i ty . S e e , e . g. , M c C oy v. H ol l a nd, 364 F . 3d 166, 170 ( 4th C i r . 2004) ( c o n s tru in g th e r e q u ir e m e n ts n e e d e d to a tta in d is a b ility b e n e f its u n d e rth e P la n ) .Generally speaking , the Plan correlates a Plan participant’s entitlement to a pension 1 with the participa

nt’s “retirement.” R1-33, Exh. A at 4. In the context of disability benef its, a Plan participant who be comes totally disabled as a

result of a

mine acc ident and ce ases wor king is s aid to b esu

bje c t to “ Di sa

bil ity Re tire ment, ”and

is t hereby e lig ibl efo r a

pens ion wh ileso disabled. See id. at 7. 4 T he P l an prov i des that“ [t ] he T rust ee s . . . shal l have ful l and fi nal det erm i nat i on as to a ll is s u e s c o n c e r n in g e lig ib ility f o rb e n e f its .” R 1 - 3 3 , E x h . A a t 3 2 . T h e o th e rr e le v a n t P la n p r o v is io n p e r ta in s to th e tim in g o f th e m o n th ly pe ns i on be ne f

i t s –di s a bi l i ty orothe r w i s e . T he P l a n s t a t e s tha t“ [ t ] he f i r s tpa y m e nt on a ny pe ns i on s ha l l be m a de a s s oon a s pos s i bl e a f t e ra n appl i c a t i on f

orpe ns i on h as b een recei v ed . . . . ” R 1 -3 3 , E x h . A at1 5 . T h e P l an al so st at es th atth e fi rst be ne f i tpa y m e nts ha l l be m a de “ f orthe m onth f

ol l ow i ng the m onth i n w hi c h the P ar t i ci pantre t i re s a nd becom es el i gi bl e f or a pensi on i n acc ordance w i th A rt i cl e I I [ the E l i gi bi l i ty s e c t i on of the P l a n] . . . . ” I d. 1 G r e e n f i l e d a n a c c i de ntr e por tw i th hi s e m pl oy e ri n M a y of 1990, i ndi c a t i ng th a t h e h a d b e e n in

ju r e d o n th e jo b o n 9 M a r c h 1 9 9 0 w h ile o p e r a tin g a T e r e x p a n , a pi ec e of heavy e qu i pm ent . T he ac ci dentre po rtsugg es t ed thatG re en suff er ed back stra i n as are sul tof the i nci dent . G re en, ho w ever , di d n otse ek di sabi l i ty benef i t s a t thatt i m e. O v e rth r e e y e a r s la te r , in O c to b e r1 9 9 3 , G r e e n ap p lie d f o rS S D I b e n e f

its f r o m th e S o c ia l S e c u r ity A d m in is tr a tio n , c la im in g a d is a b ility d u e to a b a c k s tr a in fr om an on -the-j ob i nj ury. H i s S S D I app l i ca t i on w as deni ed i n 1 99 4, and G re en5

s o u g h tr e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f th a td e n i a l . Me a n wh i l e , wh i l e th e ap p e a l o f h i s S S DI appl i c a t i on w a s pe ndi ng, i n 1995 G r e e n appl i e d f ora di s a bi l i ty pe ns i on w i th the T rust ee s, pu rs uantt o t he t erm s of the P l an. H e m ai nt ai ned t hathi s i nj ury had oc c ur r e d on 9 M a r c h 1990, a nd de s c r i be d the i nj ur i ous e ve nta s a c ont i nuous bounc i ng up a nd dow n tha tha d c a us e d hi m ba c k pa i n. I n F e brua r y 1996, the T ru s te e s c o n ta c te d G r e e n a n d in q u ir e d w h e th e rh e h a d r e c e iv e d a n S S D I a w a r d . G r e e n a d v is e d th a t h e w a s s till a w a itin g ad e c is io n o n h is S S D I b e n e f its . O n 8 J u ly 1996, the T rus t e e s de ni e d hi s c l a i m f ordi s a bi l i ty be ne f

i t s , ba s e d on the f

a c ttha the h ad n o tyetest ab l i sh ed th ath e w as el i g i b l e fo r S S D I b en efi t s, w h i ch i s a p rereq u i si t e fo r t o t al d i sab i l i ty b en efi t s u n d er th e P l an . S u b seq u en tt o th e T ru st ees’ deni al , the se para t e deni al of G re en’ s S S D I benefi t s w as up hel d o n app ea l by an A dm i ni stra t i ve L aw Judg e ( “ A L J” ). I n N o v e m b e r1 9 9 7 , h o w e v e r , th e A p p e a ls C o u n c il o f th e S o c ia l S e c u r ity A dm i ni stra t i on vaca t ed the A L J’ s dec i si on on the S S D I benefi t s a nd re m anded G r e e n ’s c a s e , o r d e r in g th a t a d d itio n a l m e d ic a l e v id e n c e , in c lu d in g p s y c h ia tr ic ev id en ce , b e o b tain ed an d co n sid er ed . A fter a d iffe re n t A L J r ev iew ed G re en ’s m edi ca l re cords, he concl ud ed thatG re en suff er ed fr om chroni c bac k p ai n from an o n - th e - j o b i n j u r y th a th a d o c c u r r e d i n 1 9 9 0 . Ac c o r d i n g l y , o n 2 M a y 1 9 9 8 , th e ALJ f ound tha tG r e e n w a s di s a bl e d a s of 1993 ( the t i m e G r e e n be ga n t o c om pl a i n of pa i n, a nd, e ve ntua l l y , c e a s e d w or ki ng) due t o de ge ne r a t i ve di s c di s e a s e of theThe Tr ustees prepare d a series of Guidelines to a ssist i n interpre ting the provisions of 2 the Plan. Acc ordingto those Guidelines, an incident will be considere d a “mine accident” for purp os e s o f t

hePlan if it o c c ur re d at a de finit etim eand

plac e ; if it i s in thenatureof

a de finit e occur renc e or event (a s opposed to a deg enerative disea se); and if it was ca used by physical impact from some e x ternal forceor objec t (rather than simply the re sult of a mine worker’s own physical condition). 6 l um bar a nd ce rvi ca l spi ne, hi at i al herni a, du od enal ul ce r, and adj ustm entdi sorder w i th d ep ressi o n . T h erefo re, o n 2 M ay 1 9 9 8 th e A L J aw ard ed G reen S S D I b en efi t s. A y e a rl a t e r , on 18 M a y 1999, the T rus t e e s r e c e i ve d a c opy of G r e e n’ s 1998 S S D I a w ar d, and t hu s G re en’ s f i l e w as re op ened. U po n further r evi ew , ho w ever , th e T ru s te e s a g a in d e n ie d G r e e n ’s ap p lic a tio n f o ra d is a b ility p e n s io n , b a s e d th is t i m e on the i rc onc l us i on tha tthe e vi de nc e c onc e r ni ng the a l l e ge d 9 M a r c h 1990 in c id e n t w a s to o in d e f

in ite to m e e t th e P la n ’s d e f in itio n o f a “m in e a c c id e n t.” 2 I n the i ra s s e s s m e ntof

G r e e n’ s c l a i m , the T rus t e e s f i r s tobs e r ve d tha tthe a c c i de ntr e por tonl y s t a t e d tha tG r e e n ha d s uf f e r e d ba c k s tr a i n w hi l e ope r a t i ng a T er ex pan, bu tthatthe re cords f ai l ed t o ref

l ec ta def i ni t e i nj uri ou s e ventthat caused hi s di sabi l i ty. T he T rust ee s a l so no t ed thatG re en di d n otse ek m edi ca l tre atm entfor the pu t at i ve i nj ury unt i l M ay of 19 90 , three m on ths af t erthe al l eged i nci dent , and t hathe had con t i nu ed t o o pera t e hea vy equi pm entatthatt i m e. In a ddi t i on, the T rus t e e s obs e rve d tha tG r e e n’ s m e di c a l r e c or ds r e f l e c t e d i nt e r m i t t e nt com pl ai nt s of bac k p ai n every si x m on ths or so, w i tho utany a dd i t i on al traum a. In l i gh tof thi s e vi dence, as w el l as the A L J’ s S S D I a w ar d, the T rust ee s det erm i ned tha tG r e e n’ s hi a t i a l he r ni a a nd duode na l ul c e r s bor e no c a us a l r e l a t i ons hi p t o the7

a l l e ge d m i ne a c c i de nt ; tha thi s de ge ne r a t i ve di s c di s e a s e w a s a pr ogr e s s i ve c o n d itio n r a th e rth a n a n in ju r io u s e v e n t; a n d th a t h is c e r v ic a l p r o b le m s w e r e lik e ly b r o u g h t a b o u t b y a s e p a r a te 1 9 9 3 a u to m o b ile a c c id e n t a n d w e r e n o t w o r k - r e la te d . A ft erexpl ai ni ng the basi s f or the T rust ee s’ deni al , G re en re qu es t ed, and w as gr a nt e d, a n e xt e ns i on of t i m e t o s ubm i ta ddi t i ona l e vi de nc e c onc e r ni ng hi s 1990 m in e a cc id en t. U p o n a s ec o n d re v iew , h o w ev er , th e T ru stee s a g ain d en ied G re en ’s c l a i m i n A pr i l 2000, ba s e d on the i rc onc l us i on tha thi s a l l e ge d i nj ur y w a s t oo i n d efi n i t e, b o th i n t erm s o f w h en th e cl ai m ed i n j u ry o ccu rred an d w h atth e i n j u rycau si n g ev en tw as. T he r e a f t e r , l i t i ga t i on e ns ue d. G r e e n s ue d the T rus t e e s i n s t a t e c our ti n 2000, a l l e gi ng the w r ongf

ul de ni a l of

hi s di s a bi l i ty pe ns i on be ne f i t . I n F e brua r y 2001, th e T ru s te e s a d v is e d G r e e n th a t if h e w o u ld a g r e e to d is m is s h is a c tio n , th e y w o u ld perm i thi m t o sub m i taddi t i on al m edi ca l evi dence and w ou l d agree t o re- consi der hi s c l ai m for t ot al di sabi l i ty pensi on benefi t s. C on se qu ent l y, the ca se w as di s m i s s e d, a nd G r e e n s ubm i t t e d a ddi t i ona l e vi de nc e t o the T rus t e e s i n J ul y 2001 c onc e r ni ng the na tur e of hi s i nj ur y , i nc l udi ng hi s t e s t i m ony tha tthe i nj ur y on 9 M a r c h 1990 ha d be e n c a us e d i ns t a nt l y f r om hi t t i ng a bum p w hi l e he w a s dr i vi ng m i ni ng e qui pm e nt . A ddi t i ona l e vi de nc e w a s s ubm i t t e d i n M a r c h 2002, a nd a he a r i ng w a s he l d on G r e e n’ s appl i c a t i on on 29 M a r c h 2002. In A p ril 2 0 0 2 , after re -r ev iew in g th e r ec o rd in it s e n ti re ty, i n clu d in g G re en ’s8

new l y s ub m i t t ed evi dence, the T rust ee s c on cl ud ed thatG re en’ s i nci dentdi d i nd ee d m ee tthe defi ni t i on of a “ m i ne ac ci dent ” und erthe P l an. S peci fi ca l l y, the T rust ee s co n cl u d ed th atth e n ew ev i d en ce est ab l i sh ed th atG reen h ad b een i n j u red b y a de f i ni t e , i nj ur i ous e ve nt . T he y f ound c r e di bl e a w r i t t e n s t a t e m e ntf r om G r e e n’ s c ow o r k e r , in d ic a tin g th a t G r e e n h a d c o m p la in e d a lo u d o f b a c k p a in a f

te rh is equi pm enthad h i ta pot ho l e. T he T rust ee s a l so ob se rved thatG re en’ s new e vi de nc e s ugge s t e d tha tthe e qui pm e nthe ha d be e n dr i vi ng w a s r e pa i r e d a r ound the tim e h e w a s in

ju r e d , th e r e b y s u g g e s tin g th a t its s h o c k a b s o rb e r s m a y h a v e b e e n in a d a m a g e d o rd e f

e c tiv e c o n d itio n w h e n th e m a c h in e h it th e p o th o le . A f t e rc onc l us i ve l y de t e r m i ni ng tha tthe 1990 i nc i de ntw a s a bona f i de m i ne ac ci dentfor purpo se s of the P l an, the T rust ee s c on du ct ed an addi t i on al in v e s tig a tio n to d e te r m in e if th e 1 9 9 0 a c c id e n t h a d c o n tr ib u te d s u b s ta n tia lly to G r e e n’ s di s a bi l i ty , w hi c h c om m e nc e d i n l a t e 1993. A f t e rtha ti nve s t i ga t i on, the T ru s te e s n o tif

ie d G r e e n in N o v e m b e ro f 2 0 0 2 th a t h is ap p lic a tio n f o ra d is a b ility pensi on benefi thad b ee n app roved. T he ef fe ct i ve dat e of the pensi on w as Ja nu ary 1 9 9 4 , a n d th e T ru s te e s r e m itte d a c h e c k to G r e e n f o ra ll m o n th ly p e n s io n p a y m e n ts fr om the ef

fe ct i ve dat e of J anuary 19 94 up throu gh D ec em ber 200 2. G re en w as a ls o a d v is e d b y th e T ru s te e s th a t h e w o u ld h e n c e f o r th r e c e iv e f

u tu r e m o n th ly d is a b ility p a y m e n ts a t th e s ta r t o f e a c h m o n th . A f t e rr e c e i vi ng hi s l um p s um pa y m e ntr e f l e c t i ng e i ghty e a r s ’ w or th of9

pe ns i on be ne f

i t s , G r e e n i nqui r e d a s t o w he the rhe w a s e nt i t l e d t o i nt e r e s ton the am ou ntthatthe T rust ee s had pai d retroac t i vel y. T he T rust ee s a dv i se d t hatG re en w a s note nt i t l e d t o i nt e r e s ton the r e tr oa c t i ve pa y m e nt , be c a us e the r e w a s no p r o v is io n in th e P la n a llo w in g f o rs u c h in te r e s t. A f t e rr e c e i vi ng the T rus t e e s ’ r e s pons e , i n J une 2005 G r e e n br oughtthe pres entac t i on , pu rs uantt o E R IS A § 5 02 (a ), 29 U . S . C . § 1 13 2(a) , i n t he N orthern D i s tr i c to f

A l a b a ma , n a mi n g a s d e f e n d a n t s th e Tru s t e e s , th e Tru s t , a n d th e ERI SA P l an (h erei n aft er, co l l ect i v el y, “ th e T ru st ees”). G reen ’ s co m p l ai n tso u g h ti n t erest on the benefi t s thathad b ee n retroac t i vel y pai d o utof the T rust . H i s a ct i on w as brou gh ton behal f of hi m se l f a nd al l pers on s s i m i l ar l y s i tuat ed w ho had rece i ved r e tr oa c t i ve be ne f

i tpa y m e nt s unde rthe P l a n butha d notr e c e i ve d a ny i nt e r e s ton tho se paym ent s. A ft era per i od of di sc ov ery, bo th p ar t i es m ov ed for s um m ary ju d g m e n t. In a w el l -r ea soned and tho roug h o pi ni on , the di stri ctcourtgrant ed sum m ary j ud gm entfor the T rust ee s on al l of G re en’ s c l ai m s. T he di stri ctcourtfoun d t hat G r e e n c o u ld n o t r e c o v e rin te r e s t u n d e rE R I S A § 5 0 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) , 2 9 U .S .C . § 11 32 (a )( 1)(B ), beca use our ho l di ng i n F l i ntprec l ud ed a c l ai m antfr om bri ng i ng an in d e p e n d e n t c la im f

o rin te r e s t u n d e rE R I S A § 5 0 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) u n le s s th e P la n , b y its ow n t e r m s , pr ovi de d f

ori nt e r e s t . T he di s tr i c tc our ta l s o f ound tha tG r e e n c oul d not r e c o v e ri n t e r e s tb y c o n s tru i n g i ta s “ o th e re q u i t a b l e r e l i e f ” p u r s u a n tt o E R I S A §10

5 0 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) , 2 9 U .S .C . § 1 1 3 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) , s in c e th e T ru s te e s ’ c o n d u c t d id n o t a m o u n t to e i the ra vi ol a t i on of

E R I S A ora br e a c h of

the P l a n’ s t e r m s . B e c a us e the r e w e r e no di s put e d i s s ue s of

m a t e r i a l f

a c ta nd G r e e n’ s E R I S A c l a i m s f a i l e d a s a m a t t e rof l a w , the di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d s um m a r y j udgm e ntt o the T rus t e e s . I n doi ng s o, the courtconcl ud ed thatG re en’ s m ot i on for c l as s c er t i fi ca t i on w as m oo t . T hi s app ea l f ol l ow e d. I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n app ea l , G re en cont ends thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n g ra nt i ng sum m ary j ud gm entt o t he T rust ee s. In the cont extof an E R IS A ac t i on w e r evi ew a di stri ct court ’ s gra ntof sum m ary j ud gm entde no vo , appl yi ng the sa m e l egal st andard that c o n tr o lle d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e te r m in a tio n . W illia m s v . B e lls o u th T e le c o m m s ., Inc. , 37 3 F . 3d 11 32 , 11 34 (11t h C i r. 20 04 ). U nd erthatst andard, sum m ary j ud gm enti s app ropri at e w here “ there i s no g enui ne i ss ue as t o any m at er i al fa ct a n d th e mo v i n g p a r ty i s e n t i t l e d t o j u d g me n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w . ” Fe d . R. Ci v . P. 56 (c ). G re en’ s a rgum enton appeal i s e ss ent i al l y tw o-fol d. F i rs t , he cont ends that he i s e nt i t l e d t o br i ng a c a us e of a c t i on f ori nt e r e s ton hi s de l a y e d pe ns i on pa y m e nt un der E R IS A § 5 02 (a )( 1)(B ), 29 U . S . C . § 1 13 2(a) (1)( B ), si nce i nt er es ti s a n i m pl i e d “ be ne f

i t ” unde rthe t e r m s of

the P l a n. S e c ond, a nd a s a n a l t e r na t i ve th e o r y , G r e e n a r g u e s th a t h e is e n title d to s u e to r e c o v e rin te r e s t o n h is b e n e f itIn addition to these substantive leg al arguments concerningthe availability of an 3 interest re cover

y under ERI SA §§ 502(a)( 1)(B ) and 502( a)( 3), Gre en also a ppeals the district court’s denial of cla ss cer tification as to his action ag ainst the Trustee s. As is discussed subsequently , however, bec ause w e conc lude that Gre en’s ERI SA claims fail as a matter of la

w, his argument concerningthe proprie ty of cla ss cer

tification is rendered moot. 11 p aym en tp u rsu an tt o E R IS A § 5 0 2 (a)(3 ), 2 9 U . S . C . § 1 1 3 2 (a)(3 ), si n ce i n t erest f a l l s w i thi n the rubr i c of “ othe rappr opr i a t e e qui t a bl e r e l i e f . ” W e a ddr e s s e a c h of 3 the s e c ont e nt i ons i n tur n. A . G re en’ s C l ai m for I nt er es tun der E R IS A § 5 02 (a )( 1)(B ) S ect i o n 5 0 2 (a)(1 )(B ) o f E R IS A , 2 9 U . S . C . § 1 1 3 2 (a)(1 )(B ), p erm i t s a part i ci pantor benefi ci ary of apensi on pl an t o b ri ng a c i vi l ac t i on “ t o rec ov er benefi t s due t o h i m un der the t erm s of hi s pl an. ” G re en cont ends thatthe ac crued i nt er es ton hi s del ay ed benefi t s c on st i tut es a s epar at e “ benefi t [] du e t o h i m un der the t erm s of hi s pl an, ” s ee i d. , and t hatthere fore he shou l d b e perm i t t ed t o rec ov er i nt er es tun der E R IS A § 5 02 (a )( 1)(B ). T he T rust ee s c ou nt erthatthe P l an d o c u m e n ts d o n o t e x p r e s s ly p r o v id e f o ra p a y m e n t o f

in te r e s t, a n d th a t § 50 2(a) (1)( B ), by i t s l angu age, on l y perm i t s acl ai m antt o o bt ai n “ benefi t s” thatar e pr ovi de d “ unde rthe t e r m s of the plan. ” I d. (e m ph as i s a dd ed). A l tho ug h G re en c o n c e d e s th a t th e P la n m a k e s n o e x p lic it m e n tio n o f a c c ru e d in te r e s t in its desc ri pt i on of the P l an benefi t s, he ar gu es thatw e s ho ul d con strue i nt er es tas an “im p lie d te r m ” o f

th e P la n . S e e , e .g ., D o b s o n v . H a r tf o r d F in . S e r v s . G r o u p , I n c ., 3 8 9 F .3 d 3 8 6 , 3 9 0 - 9 1 , 3 9 8 ( 2 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( f in d in g th a t a p e n s io n p la n im p lic itly12

ca l l s f or i nt er es ton di sabi l i ty pay m ent s, and con cl ud i ng that , beca use i nt er es ti s a n im p lie d b e n e f

it u n d e rth e p la n , a c la im a n t m a y s e e k to r e c o v e rin te r e s t p u r s u a n t to E R IS A § 5 02 (a )( 1)(B )) . W e a re re l uct ant , ho w ever , t o i m pl y benef i t s i nt o t he t erm s of a n em pl oyer pe ns i on pl a n w he r e s uc h be ne f i t s a r e note xpr e s s l y de s i gna t e d. M or e ove r , a s the T rust ee s properl y poi ntou t , ou r dec i si on i n F l i nt , 33 7 F . 3d at13 29 -30, i n w hi ch w e h el d th ata cl ai m an tco u l d n o tb ri n g an i n d ep en d en tact i o n t o reco v er i n t erest u n d e r§ 5 0 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) w h e r e th e p e n s io n p la n d id n o t e x p r e s s ly p r o v id e f o rin te r e s t, c l e a r l y pr e c l ude s G r e e n f r om br i ngi ng the pr e s e nta c t i on. I n F lin t, a c la im a n t w h o w a s a w a r d e d r e tr o a c tiv e d is a b ility b e n e f its f r o m h is em pl oyer–v i a al um p sum paym ent–sub se qu ent l y broug htan ac t i on i n federa l c our tpur s ua ntt o E R I S A § 502( a ) , s e e ki ng t o r e c ove ri nt e r e s ton the r e tr oa c t i ve benefi t s. Id. at13 28 . A s i n t hi s c as e, i n F l i ntthe pensi on pl an do cum ent s w er e si l en treg ard i n g th e p aym en to f accru ed i n t eresto n d el ayed b en efi t s; n ev erth el ess, the c l a i m a nta r gue d tha t , a s a “ de f a ul trul e , ” i nt e r e s ts houl d nor m a l l y be re coverabl e, even i f the pl an do cum ent s di d n otexpres sl y a dd re ss the i ss ue. Id. at 1 3 2 9 . W e r e

je c te d th is c o n te n tio n , c o n c lu d in g th a t, w h e r e a n e m p lo y e e - b e n e f it p l a n f a i l e d t o e x p r e s s l y p r o v i d e f o ra c c ru e d i n t e r e s ta s a p l a n b e n e f i t , E R I S A § 5 0 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) w o u ld n o t p e r m it a c la im a n t to b r in g a s ta n d - a lo n e c a u s e o f a c tio n toGre en misconstrues the sc ope of F lint’s holding with respe ct to § 502(a) (1)( B) relief , 4 and, in so doing , he er

roneously sug g ests that Flint has been “re jected”by

other c ircuits and by c o urt s w i th i nth eE l e v e nthC i rc u i t

– a c o nt e nt i o nth atd o e s n o tw i th s t an d c l o s es c r ut i ny. Flint only addre ssed the nar

row que stion of whether

a claimant could bringa stand-alone causeof ac tion for intere st under § 502(a)(1) (B ) in the absence of any plan provision providing for interest. See, e .g ., Cheal v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 300 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1352 (N.D . Ga. 20 04 ) (p rop erl y

con strui ng Fli ntas ad dres si ng so lel y th e qu est io n o f wh eth er § 5 02 (a)(1 )(B) would “support an independent claim for interest” in the a bsenceof any

plan provision providing for it). Flint did not, however , cre ate a per seprohibition on a rec overy of intere st under § 502(a) (1)( B) ; in fact, the F lint decision leaves open the prospec t of an ERI SA claimant litigating an d re co v eri n g anaw ar d

o f b en ef i t s th atar e du e an d

unp ai d un d er § 5 0 2 (a )( 1 )( B) an d

re ce i v i n g, as par t of that bene fits award, interest on those benefits from the time they were due. I f, for example, a plan par

ticipant sued to obtain a “benef it due . . . under theterms of his plan” pursuant to § 502(a)(1) (B ) and w as eventually succe ssful in attaining a

judgment awarding bene fi ts, no thingin F lint w ould p re c ludethetrial c ourt from inc ludingint e re st in a s p art of its ultimatebene fi ts a

wa rd . Se e , e .g ., Che a l at 13 52 (“ [I ]f Mr. Che a l pre vails on themeri ts o f his claim, he may

be entitled to a judgment for benefits. I f he is succ essful in rec overinga judgment for benefits, then he ma

y be ableto rec over prejudgment interest at the disc retion of the Court.” ) (empha sis omitted). This is so, since, as w e havestated, “[t] he aw ard of an amount of prejudgment interest in an ERI SA caseis a matter c ommitt ed to the sound discretion of the trial court.”Florence N ighting ale Nur sing Ser v., Inc. v. B lue Cross/Blue Shield of Ala bama, 41 F .3d 1476, 1484 (11th Cir. 1995) (c itation and internal quotations omitted); acc ord Skretvedt v. Dupont, 372 F.3d 193, 208 ( 3d Cir. 2004) (“[A]n ERI SA plaintiff who prevails under § 502(a) (1)( B) in seekingan aw ard of benef its may reque st prejudgment interest under that section as par t of his or her benefits awa rd.”) . Gre e n’ s c a se , h ow e ver, is no t an s c e na ri o whereGre e n s uc c e ssf ully ob taine d “bene fi ts due” under § 502(a)(1) (B ) pursua nt to a court judgment and then sought to obtain interest as par t of that larg er a

ward; rather , his case involves a wholly separate, stand- alone c ause of action for interest with no conc omitant “benef its” awa rd. B eca use Gre en’s c ase involves a n independent causeof ac tion for intere st under § 502(a)(1)–wholly separate f

rom a succ essful ac tion for “bene fi ts”–h is c a seis m oreanalog ou s to theaty pic a l ty peof c laim that w ere

je c te d in F lint. 13 r e c o v e rs u c h in te r e s t. I d . a t 1 3 2 9 - 3 0 . O u rap p r o a c h in F lin t w a s c o n g ru e n t w ith 4 the e a r l i e rde c i s i on of

the S e ve nth C i r c ui ti n C l a i rv. H a r r i s T rus t& S a vi ngs B a nk, i n w hi c h tha tc our tr e

j e c t e d a c l a i m a nt ’ s i nde pe nde nta c t i on f ora c c rue d i nt e r e s ton del ay ed benefi t s und erE R IS A § 5 02 (a )( 1)(B ). S ee 19 0 F . 3d 49 5, 49 7 (7t h C i r. 1 9 9 9 ) ( “[ I ]n te r e s t is n o t a b e n e f it s p e c if ie d a n y w h e r e in th e p la n , a n d o n ly b e n e f itsGre en does not dispute the prece dential impact of F lint; i n fac t, at oral a rgument he 5 agree d that Flint prec luded his claim for accr ued intere st under § 502(a)(1) (B ). Instead, Green encourag es us to overr

ule our de cision in Flint. However, “[a] prior pane l decision of this Court is binding on subsequent panels and c an be overturned only by the Court sitti ngen banc .” Morrison v. Amway

Corp., 323 F.3d 920, 929 ( 11th Cir. 2003) (quoting B onner v. City of Prichard, 661 F .2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981)). In addition, despite Gre en’s a rguments to the contrar

y , our dec ision in Flint has not been un dermine d o r c a lle d into q ue sti on by theSup remeCourt ’s su

bs e qu e nt de c isi on s in

Gre at- Wes t L ife &Annuity

Insuranc e Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204, 122 S. Ct . 708 (2002) a nd Serebof

f v. Mid -Atla nti c Me dic a l Serv ic e s, Inc ., __ _ U .S. __ _, 12 6 S. Ct. 18 69 (M ay

15 , 2 00 6) . A s is discussed in Section B, thoseSupreme Court dec isions were limited to Section § 502(a) (3) of ERI SA, and the ty

pes of “ equitable relief”that areavailableunder that separate sec tion. The decisions in Knudson and Sereboff did not discuss § 502(a) (1)( B)–the provision whose c ontours we se t out to define in Flint . 14 spec i fi ed i n t he pl an ca n b e r ec ov er ed i n a sui tun der § 50 2(a) (1)( B ). ”) (P osner, J. ). F lin t is b in d in g p r e c e d e n t in th is c ir c u it, a n d it is p la in ly c o n tr o llin g in 5 G re en’ s c as e. A s i n F l i nt , G re en se eks t o b ri ng a s t and-al on e a ct i on for a cc rued i n t e r e s to n b e n e f

i t s th a tw e r e d e l a y e d b u te v e n tu a l l y p a i d o u ti n a r e tr o a c t i v e , l u mp s um pa y m e nt , de s pi t e the f a c ttha tthe pe ns i on P l a n a ti s s ue f a i l s t o pr ovi de f

or in te r e s t a s a b e n e f

it. B e c a u s e a c a u s e o f

a c tio n u n d e r§ 5 0 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) is lim ite d to tho se cl ai m ant s s ee ki ng t o rec ov er“ benefi t s due t o [them ] un der the t erm s of [ the] pl a n, ” a nd be c a us e F l i ntm a ke s c l e a rtha ta n i nde pe nde ntc a us e of a c t i on f or i nt e r e s tw i l l notl i e unde r§ 502( a ) ( 1) ( B ) w he n the pe ns i on pl a n f a i l s t o pr ovi de f

or such i nt er es tas a benefi t , the di stri ctcourtac t ed prop er l y i n con cl ud i ng that Gr e e n ’ s § 5 0 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) c l a i m f a i l e d a s a m a t t e ro f

l a w. B . G r e e n’ s C l a i m f

orI nt e r e s tunde rE R I S A § 502( a ) ( 3) G r e e n ’s a lte r n a tiv e ap p r o a c h to p u r s u in g in te r e s t o n h is r e tr o a c tiv e d is a b ility15

benefi t s i s E R IS A § 5 02 (a )( 3), 29 U . S . C . § 1 13 2(a) (3). T hatsubsec t i on prov i des f ora c a us e of

a c t i on by a par t i ci pant , benefi ci ary or f i du ci ary . . . t o o bt ai n o ther appr opr i a t e e qui t a bl e r e l i e f ( i ) t o r e dr e s s [ ] vi ol a t i ons [ of E R I S A ] or( i i ) t o e nf

or c e a ny pr ovi s i ons of

[ E R I S A ] orthe t e r m s of the pl a n. I d. T hus , unde rthe pl a i n l a ngua ge of § 502( a ) ( 3) , the r e l i e f

s oughtm us tbe e qui t a bl e i n na tur e , a nd the c l a i m f orr e l i e f m us tbe pr e di c a t e d on e i the ra vi ol a t i on o f E R I S A o rth e e n f

o r c e m e n t o f

a p la n p r o v is io n o ra n E R I S A p r o v is io n . G r e e n c o n te n d s th a t h is c a u s e o f a c tio n f o rin te r e s t o n h is d e la y e d b e n e f its c o n s titu te s “o th e rap p r o p r ia te e q u ita b le r e lie f ” a n d th a t th e r e f

o r e it is p e r m is s ib le un der E R IS A § 5 02 (a )( 3). H e a l so ar gu es thathe has s ucce ss ful l y e st abl i shed v io la tio n s o f

b o th E R I S A a n d th e P la n , s u c h th a t h is a c tio n s h o u ld b e p e r m itte d to go f or w a r d. T he di s tr i c tc our tf ound tha t , e ve n a s s um i ng tha tG r e e n’ s a c t i on f or i nt e r e s tc oul d be s a i d t o f a l l unde rthe rubr i c “ e qui t a bl e r e l i e f , ” G r e e n ha d not id e n tif ie d a v io la tio n o f

e ith e rE R I S A o rth e P la n . T h u s , th e c o u r t p r o p e r ly c onc l ude d tha tG r e e n’ s c l a i m f a i l e d a s a m a t t e rof

l a w , r e ga r dl e s s of

w he the rthe in te r e s t G r e e n s o u g h t c o n s titu te d “a p p r o p r ia te e q u ita b le r e lie f .” § 5 0 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) . G r e e n now appe a l s tha tde c i s i on. W e f ir s t a d d r e s s G r e e n ’s c o n te n tio n th a t h is a c tio n f o rin te r e s t o n h is d e la y e d d is a b ility b e n e f it is a c la im f

o r“o th e rap p r o p r ia te e q u ita b le r e lie f ” w ith in16

th e m e a n in g o f

§ 5 0 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t d e f in e d th e s c o p e o f

r e lie f th a t is a va i l a bl e unde r§ 502( a ) ( 3) i n K nuds on a nd S e r e bof f . K nuds on i nvol ve d a n a c t i on by an i nsurance c om pany agai nstan i nj ured dri ver w ho w as prot ec t ed by an em pl oyee benefi tpl an. K nu dson , 53 4 U . S . at20 7-08 , 12 2 S . C t . at71 1-71 2. A ft er th e in ju re d d riv erre co v er ed to rt d am ag es fr o m a th ird p ar ty to rtfe as o r, th e p lan ’s in s u r e rs u e d th e p la n p a r tic ip a n t, s e e k in g r e im b u r s e m e n t f o rm o n ie s th a t it h a d p a id outt o he rf

orhe rm e di c a l e xpe ns e s pur s ua ntt o the pl a n. I d. T he i ns ur e r ’ s a c t i on w as brou gh tun der E R IS A § 5 02 (a )( 3); the i nsurerar gu ed thatthe pl an pa r t i c i pa nt ’ s f

a i l ur e t o r e i m bur s e i tc ons t i tut e d a vi ol a t i on of the pl a n’ s t e r m s , a nd tha ti t s c l a i m w a s “ e qui t a bl e ” i n na tur e , i n tha ti ti nvol ve d both a n i nj unc t i on a nd a c la im f o rr e s titu tio n . I d . a t 2 1 0 - 1 2 , 1 2 2 S . C t. a t 7 1 3 - 1 4 . T he S upr e m e C our tdi s a gr e e d, a nd a f f i r m e d the gr a ntof

s um m a r y j udgm e nt i n f a vorof the de f e nda nt , ba s e d on i t s c onc l us i on tha tthe i ns ur e r ’ s a c t i on w a s not

“ eq u i t ab l e” i n n atu re, as i tw as essen t i al l y a cl ai m t o co m p el th e d efen d an tt o p ay a s u m o f m o n e y– th a t is , a tr a d itio n a l s u it a t la w f o rd a m a g e s . I d . a t 2 1 0 , 1 2 2 S . C t. at71 2-71 3. T he K nu dson courtal so re j ec t ed the i nsurer ’ s a t t em ptt o charac t er i ze the E R I S A r e i m bur s e m e nta c t i on a s one of e qui t a bl e r e s t i tut i on. I d. a t212- 13; 122 S . C t . a t714. T he C our tdr e w a di s t i nc t i on be tw e e n l e ga l r e s t i tut i on–“ a j udgm e nt i m pos i ng m e r e l y pe r s ona l l i a bi l i ty upon a de f e nda ntt o pa y a s um of

m one y ” –a nd e qui t a bl e r e s t i tut i on–a n a c t i on i n w hi c h the pl a i nt i f f s e e ks t o “ r e s t or e t o the17

pl a i nt i f f pa r t i c ul a rf

unds orpr ope r ty i n the de f e nda nt ’ s pos s e s s i on” thr ough the i m po si t i on of a c on struct i ve trustor an equi t abl e l i en. Id. at21 3-14 ; 12 2 S . C t . at 714- 15 ( quot a t i ons om i t t e d) . K nuds on m a de c l e a rtha tthe l a t t e rty pe of a c t i on coul d b e a l l eged un der § 50 2(a) (3), as i tw as trul y e qu i t abl e, bu tthatthe form er type of a ct i on coul d n ot . A pp l yi ng thatrul e t o t he fa ct s of K nu dson , the court c onc l ude d tha tthe pl a i nt i f f - i ns ur e rs oughtf

unds tha tw e r e no l onge ri n the defe nd ant ’ s posse ss i on , bu thad i nst ea d b ee n p l ac ed i nt o a spec i al needs trust , i d. at 20 7, 12 2 S . C t . at70 8, and t hatthere fore i t s a ct i on w as cl osert o a cl ai m atl aw –at essen ce, seek i n g t o “ i m p o s[e] m erel y p erso n al l i ab i l i ty u p o n a d efen d an tt o p ay a s um of m one y ” –s uc h tha ti tw a s notpe r m i s s i bl e unde r§ 502( a ) ( 3) . I d. a t213- 14; 1 2 2 S . C t. a t 7 1 4 - 1 5 . I n S e r e bof

f , the S upr e m e C our tc l a r i f i e d the s c ope of

K nuds on by pe r m i t t i ng a pl a i nt i f f t o s ue unde r§ 502( a ) ( 3) t o e nf or c e a r e i m bur s e m e ntpr ovi s i on i n a benefi tpl an on a theory of e qu i t abl e r es t i tut i on . L i ke K nu dson , S er eboff i nv ol ved a c l ai m by a pl an adm i ni stra t or t o o bt ai n rei m bu rs em entfor m edi ca l expenses that h a d b e e n p a id o u t to th e p la n b e n e f ic ia r y b y a th ir d p a r ty to r tf e a s o r . H o w e v e r , in S e r e b o f f , th e c o u r t e m p h a s iz e d th a t th e f u n d s h a d b e e n s p e c if

ic a lly id e n tif

ie d ( v ia the thi r d pa r ty r e c ove r y pr ovi s i on of the pl a n i t s e l f

) ; tha tthe f

unds w e r e s t i l l i n the d e f e n d a n t’s p o s s e s s io n ; a n d th a t it w a s u n d is p u te d th a t th e p la in tif f w a s e n title d to the m unde rthe pl a n’ s t e r m s . ___U . S . a t___, 126 S . C t . a t1874. T he c our tthusWe leave f or another day

the question of whe ther a stand-aloneclaim for accr ued 6 interest–where benefits were withheld in violation of either a benef it plan or ERI SA itself– would be cognizable in this circuit under § 502(a)(3) on a theor y of equitablerestitution. Gre e n c ontend s th at re quiringe ith e r a n E RI SA v iol atio n o r a

vio latio n o f t

hePla n in 7 connec tion with a § 502(a)( 3) claim works a “hy per- literal re adingof § 502(a)(3) (B ).” Appellant’s Reply

Br . at 4. See also id. at 2 (stating that “[w] e shouldn’t haveto . . . prove a vio latio n o f t

hePlan D ocument o r E RI SA u nd e r § 50 2( a)( 3) ” ). Th elanguag eof thestatut eis plain, however, and it cle arly mandates a

showingof an ERI SA violation or a plan violation. Gr e e nc i t e s n o a

uth o ri ty t o th ec o ntrar

y. In f a c t, t hec a se s o n which Gre e n re lie s ma kec le ar t hat th e remus t bee ith e r a n E RI SA violation or a plan violation in connec tion with a plaintiff’s § 502(a)(3) claim for e quitable re lief. All of our sister c ircuits that have recognized a claim for interest under § 502( a)( 3) on an 18 obs e r ve d tha tthe r e s t i tut i on a c t i on a ti s s ue i nvol ve d “ a c ons truc t i ve trus tor equi t abl e l i en on a s peci fi ca l l y i dent i fi ed fund , ” i d. , and t hatthere fore i tw as di s t i ngui s ha bl e f

r om the ty pe of

c l a i m l odge d i n K nuds on. S e r e bof f r e i t e r a t e d the rul e thata s ui tt o rec ov era s peci fi c, i dent i fi abl e a ss eti n t he po ss es si on of a defe nd antw ou l d con st i tut e aval i d equ i t abl e r es t i tut i on cl ai m , and t hatthere fore s uc h a c l a i m w oul d be pe r m i s s i bl e unde rE R I S A § 502( a ) ( 3) . I d. U nd ou bt edl y m i nd ful of these tw o d ec i si on s c on strui ng § 5 02 (a )( 3), G re en f r a m e s hi s pr e s e nta c t i on f ori nt e r e s ton hi s r e tr oa c t i ve di s a bi l i ty pa y m e nta s be i ng i n th e n a tu r e o f

“ e q u i t a b l e r e s t i tu t i o n ” a n d d i s g o r g e m e n to f p r o f i t s . R 1 - 1 a t1 6 . As such, he ar gu es thathi s c l ai m for a cc rued i nt er es ti s i n t he nature of “ ot her ap p ro p ri at e eq u i t ab l e rel i ef. ” W e n eed n o td eci d e th atq u est i o n , h o w ev er, b ecau se 6 i ti s c l e a rtha tG r e e n ha s f a i l e d t o pr e s e nte vi de nc e of e i the ra n E R I S A vi ol a t i on or a P l an vi ol at i on on the partof the T rust ee s, w hi ch i s aprer equi si t e t o p ursui ng an ac t i on for e qu i t abl e r el i ef un der the pl ai n l angu age of § 50 2(a) (3). 7equitable restitution theory have doneso on ly

in light of evidencethat the plan administrator e ith e r v iol ate d th eterm s o f t hepla n in qu e sti on , o r v iol ate d E RI SA i tse lf . Se e , e .g ., Skre tve dt, 372 F.3d at 215 (stating that if a plaintiff’s benefits “were w ithheld or delayed in violation of ERI SA or an ERI SA plan,” then a n action for

interest under

§ 502(a) (3) would lie) (citation and internal quotations omitted); Fotta v. Tr ustees of theUnited Mine Workers of Am., 319 F.3d 612, 617 (3d Cir. 2003) (sa me); Parkev. First Relianc e Standard L ife Ins. Co., 368 F.3d 999, 1006-09 (8th Cir. 2004) (stating that a defendant’s ac tions “in init ially denying a

nd later su sp e nding[theplaintif

fs ]’s bene fi ts c on sti tut e d a bre a c h o f i ts obli g atio ns un der t hepla n a nd its statutory duties under ERI SA,” and that therefore an action for interest under§ 502( a)( 3) wa s via ble ); Dunn ig an v . M e t. Lif eIns . Co ., 27 7 F .3 d 2 23 , 2 30 (2 d Cir. 20 02 ) (permittingint e re st under § 502( a)( 3) where thebenef its were “unrea sonably

delayed and made longafter [the claimant] was entitled to rec eive them”under theterms of the pla n); Moore v. Capitalc are , Inc., 4 6 1 F. 3 d 1 , 1 3 (D . C . C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( fi n di n g th atth e l o we r c o urtac t edi mp ro p erl y i nd enyi n g a plaintiff’s claim for intere st, wherethe def endant f ailed to pay

benef its to which the plaintiff was clea rly entitled under his ERI SA plan). 19 1 . Br e a c h o f

th e Pl a n Te r ms F i r s t , the r e i s no e vi de nc e of a ny vi ol a t i on of

the t e r m s of

the P l a n on the p a r to f th e Tru s t e e s . G r e e n a l l e g e s th a tth e Tru s t e e s b r e a c h e d th e Pl a n ’ s t e r ms b e c a u s e th e y f

a ile d to p a y h im d is a b ility b e n e f its w h e n h e w a s e lig ib le f o rth e m . H e a r g u e s th a t h e b e c a m e “e lig ib le ” f o rth e b e n e f

its a t th e m o m e n t h e w a s to ta lly d is a b le d

– th a t is , in 1 9 9 3

– a n d th a t, u n d e rth e P la n ’s te rm s , h e w a s e n title d to m on thl y di sabi l i ty pay m ent s f rom thatt i m e f

orw ar d. H e c on t ends thatthe fa i l ure t o p ay o u tb en efi t s i m m ed i at el y aft er th e m o n th h e b ecam e el i g i b l e co n st i tu t es a brea ch of the P l an, such thathi s § 50 2(a) (3) a ct i on i s proper. We d i s a g r e e . As th e T ru s t e e s h a v e p o i n t e d o u t , u n d e rE R I S A’ s o wn pr ovi s i ons the y a r e pr ohi bi t e d f r om pa y i ng be ne f

i t s t o a c l a i m a ntw ho ha s not de m ons tr a t e d a n e nt i t l e m e ntt o s uc h be ne f i t s . T ha ti s , the T rus t e e s ’ pa y m e ntof b e n e f its h in g e s o n th e irs u b s e q u e n t de t e r m i nat i on th a t a b e n e f its c la im a n t is20

e lig ib le , ir r e s p e c tiv e o f

G r e e n ’s in te rp r e ta tio n a s to w h e n h e w a s a c tu a lly e lig ib le . H er e, th e T ru stee s d il ig en tl y a n d in g o o d fa ith u n d er to o k to d eter m in e G re en ’s e lig ib ility f

o rd is a b ility b e n e f

its , a n d , u p o n d e te r m in in g th a t h e w a s e lig ib le , p a id be ne f i t s r e tr oa c t i ve l y t o J a nua r y 1994, a s r e qui r e d by the P l a n. G r e e n’ s a l l e ga t i on o f a P la n v io la tio n is u n a v a ilin g . I n d e e d , a c c o r d in g to th e P la n ’s e x p r e s s te r m s , o n ly a n e m p lo y e e w h o is

“ t ot al l y di sabl ed as a r es ul tof a m i ne ac ci dent ” i s “ el i gi bl e f or a pensi on , ” a nd such e m pl oy e e w i l l “ be c ons i de r e d t o be t ot a l l y di s a bl e d o n ly if by re as on of such ac ci dentsuch P ar t i ci panti s s ub se qu ent l y det erm i ned t o b e e l i gi bl e f or S oci al S e c u r ity D is a b ility I n s u r a n c e [ S S D I ] B e n e f its . . . .” R 1 - 3 3 , E x h . A a t 7 ( e m p h a s is ad d ed ). M o reo v er, aft er th i s p rel i m i n ary th resh o l d i s m et , th e cl ai m an tm u stal so es t abl i sh causat i on –t hati s, thatthe m i ne ac ci dentprox i m at el y c ause d, or w as subst ant i al l y r es po nsi bl e f or, the re sul t i ng di sabi l i ty. S ee , e. g. , M cC oy, 36 4 F . 3d at 1 7 0 . T h e P la n ’s o w n te r m s m a k e c le a rth a t a p e r s o n is n o t “e lig ib le ” f o rd is a b ility b e n e f its u n le s s th e y a r e to ta lly d is a b le d , a n d , m o r e o v e r , th a t a p e r s o n is n o t to ta lly d is a b le d u n d e rth e P la n u n le s s a n d u n til th e y h a v e b e e n d e te rm in e d to b e e lig ib le f orS S D I be ne f

i t s a nd ha ve e s t a bl i s he d the r e qui s i t e c a us a l c onne c t i on be tw e e n the a c c id e n t a n d th e d is a b ility . T h e P la n f u r th e rs ta te s , in p e r tin e n t p a r t, th a t a c la im a n t is e n title d to a m o n th ly p a y m e n t in “th e m o n th f o llo w in g th e m o n th in w hi c h the P a r t i c i pa nt. . . be c om e s e l i gi bl e f ora pe ns i on i n a c c or da nc e w i th [ theGre e n c ontend s th at any de lay –h ow e ver mino r–in p ayingout di sa bil ity bene fi ts 8 eff ectuates an unjust enrichment (in that the Plan participa nt loses the time value of money ); vio late s th edutie s im

po se d o n Pl an adminis trator s p ur su ant to E RI SA; and thereby c re ate s a causeof ac tion under § 502(a)(3) . The problem with this contention, of c ourse, is that every claim for disa

bility benef its under an employee benefit plan will inevitably involve some amount of administrative de lay

in proce ssing the c laimant’s re quest. We areloath to acc ept Gre en’s blanket contention that every delay in paying out disability

benef its, however shor

t, works an unjust enrichment ag ainst the Plan participant, e ffe ctuates a violation of ERI SA, and thereby automatically

cre ates a causeof ac tion for ac crue d interest on the benefits under § 502(a) (3). 21 E lig ib ility p r o v is io n s o f th e P la n ] . . . .” R 1 - 3 3 , E x h . A a t 1 5 . I n l i ghtof

the P l a n’ s l a ngua ge , G r e e n’ s a w a r d of S S D I be ne f

i t s i n 1998 ( e i ghty e a r s a f

t e rhi s a c c i de nt ) w oul d ha ve be e n the i ns t i ga t i ng f a c t ori n a s s e s s i ng w h e th e rh e w a s “to ta lly d is a b le d ” a n d th u s e lig ib le f o ra p e n s io n u n d e rth e P la n . T h atw o u l d n o th av e en d ed th e i n q u i ry, h o w ev er, fo r, u n d er th e P l an ’ s o w n t erm s, the T rust ee s w ou l d al so have had t o ass es s the i ss ue of caus at i on –t hati s, w hether G reen w as t o t al l y d i sab l ed “ as a resu l to f a m i n e acciden t , ” see i d . at7

– a p ro cess w hi c h, ba s e d on the e vi de nc e , the y unde r t ook c a r e f ul l y a nd thor oughl y . W he n the T rust ee s pai d o utbenefi t s, they pai d t hem re troac t i vel y t o January 19 94 , w hi ch w as

“ the m on th fol l ow i ng the m on th” i n w hi ch G re en had fi rs tbecom e e l i gi bl e ( i . e. D ec em ber 199 3). S ee i d. at15 . W e f i nd thatthe T rust ee s a ct ed i n acc ordance w ith th e te r m s o f

th e P la n in a s s e s s in g G r e e n ’s d is a b ility c la im . B e c a u s e th e r e is no e vi de nc e tha tthe y vi ol a t e d the P l a n, G r e e n c a nnotj us t i f y hi s c l a i m f

or 8 e q u ita b le r e lie f

u n d e rE R I S A § 5 0 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) o n th is b a s is . 2 . Al l e g e d B r e a c h o f

E R I S A22

N o rh a s G r e e n p r e s e n te d a n y e v id e n c e th a t th e T ru s te e s b r e a c h e d E R I S A in d e la y in g h is d is a b ility b e n e f it, in p r o c e s s in g h is b e n e f it, o rin p a y in g h is c la im w i tho utac crued i nt er es t . G re en ar gu es thatthe paym entof hi s di sabi l i ty a w ar d w ith o u t a n y in te r e s t c o n s titu te d a d e c r e a s e o ra f o r f e itu r e o f a n “a c c ru e d b e n e f

it” vi a aP l an am endm ent , i n v i ol at i on of E R IS A § 2 04 (g), 29 U . S . C . § 1 05 4(g). T hat prov i si on , kn ow n as the “ ant i -c utback” rul e, i s “ i nt ended t o p re ventem pl oyer s f r o m p u l l i n g th e ru g o u tf r o m u n d e re mp l o y e e s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a p l a n , ” W i l l i a ms v. C ordi s C orp. , 30 F . 3d 14 29 , 14 31 (11t h C i r. 19 92 ) ( per c uri am ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on s om i t t ed), by prevent i ng em pl oyer s f rom el i m i nat i ng benefi t s vi a aP l an a m e ndm e nt . A l dr i dge v. L i l y - T ul i p, I nc . S a l a r y R e t . B e ne f i t s C om m i t t e e , 953 F . 2d 587, 590 ( 11th C i r . 1992) . A s the T rus t e e s pr ope r l y poi ntout , how e ve r , § 1054( g) do es no tappl y t o em pl oyee w el fa re benefi tpl ans s uch as G re en’ s. S ee R om bach v . N e s tle U S A , I n c ., 2 1 1 F .3 d 1 9 0 , 1 9 2 - 9 4 ( 2 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . T h u s G r e e n ’s a tte m p t to a lle g e a v io la tio n o f

o n th e p a r t o f

th e T ru s te e s b a s e d o n § 1 0 5 4 ( g ) is u n a v a ilin g . Pu ts i mp l y , w e f

i n d n o e v i d e n c e o f

e i th e ra Pl a n v i o l a t i o n o ra n ERI SA vi ol a t i on s o a s t o w a r r a nta § 502( a ) ( 3) c l a i m f ore qui t a bl e r e l i e f

. B e c a us e the T ru s te e s a c te d r e a s o n a b ly a n d in a c c o r d a n c e w ith b o th th e P la n a n d E R I S A in proces si ng G re en’ s di sabi l i ty c l ai m , the di stri ctcourtprop er l y c on cl ud ed that G r e e n’ s § 502( a ) ( 3) a c t i on f ora c c rue d i nt e r e s tf

a i l e d a s a m a t t e rof

l a w . A nd be c a us e , on the s e f

a c t s , ne i the r§ 502( a ) ( 1) nor§ 502( a ) ( 3) s uppor tG r e e n’ s s t a nd-Be causewe ha ve found that summary

judgment was properly

grante d in favor of

the 9 Tr us te e s o n th eun derlyingERI SA c laims of Gre e n, thec la ss repre sentativ e , th equ e sti on of c la ss cer tification is moot. S ee, e .g ., Telfair v. First Union Mortg ag e Corp. , 216 F.3d 1333, 1343 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 0) (“ Withno meri toriou s c laims , c e rtif ic atio n o f t

ho sec laims a s a

c la ss ac tio n is moot.”). 23 al on e a ct i on for a cc rued i nt er es tagai nstthe T rust ee s, the di stri ctcourtac t ed p ro p erl y i n g ran t i n g su m m ary j u d g m en tt o th e T ru st ees o n al l o f G reen ’ s cl ai m s. 9 I I I . CONCL US I ON G r e e n ha s appe a l e d the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a r y j udgm e nti n f a vor o f th e T ru s te e s o n a ll o f

h is c la im s , f

in d in g th a t E R I S A § 5 0 2 d id n o t e n title h im to b ri n g h i s st an d -al o n e act i o n fo r accru ed i n t eresto n d el ayed d i sab i l i ty b en efi t s, a bs e nte vi de nc e of

a P l a n vi ol a t i on ora n E R I S A vi ol a t i on on the pa r tof the T ru s t e e s . Ha v i n g r e v i e we d th e r e c o r d a n d th e a r g u m e n t s o f th e p a r t i e s , we c o n c l u d e : ( 1 ) th a tGr e e n ’ s i n d e p e n d e n t , s t a n d - a l o n e a c t i o n u n d e rE R I S A § 5 0 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) f

o ra c c ru e d in te r e s t o n h is d e la y e d d is a b ility b e n e f its is c le a r ly pr e c l ude d by ourhol di ng i n F l i nt ; a nd ( 2) tha tG r e e n f a i l e d t o pr ovi de e vi de nc e of e i th e ra P l a n v i o l a t i o n o ra n E R I S A v i o l a t i o n i n c o n n e c t i o n wi th h i s E R I S A § 5 0 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) a c tio n f

o re q u ita b le r e s titu tio n , a n d , th a t, th e r e f o r e , h is § 5 0 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) c la im f a i l s a s a m a t t e rof

l a w . A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc our ta c t e d pr ope r l y i n gr a nt i ng s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t to th e T ru s te e s o n a ll o f G r e e n ’s c la im s , a n d its ju d g m e n t is A FFI R M ED .