Opinion ID: 799219
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Benefit Levels

Text: Corrected Judgment. Defendants challenge several aspects of the district court's corrected judgment. First, defendants claim it was error to declare that vested healthcare benefits would be at levels in place as of December 31, 2005, rather than as of the respective dates of retirement. However, the district court's declaration actually referred to the levels in place for their respective retirement groups (pre-1986 retirees and 1986-1993 retirees) prior to the changes imposed by Defendants beginning January 1, 2006. Second, as noted earlier, defendants argued that the judgment improperly included spouses of retirees who retired prior to the 1980 CBA, since coverage for spouses of employees (and therefore retirees) was not added until the 1980 CBA. Plaintiffs do not seem to disagree, responding that the judgment was consistent with this because it declares a right to medical insurance coverage based on the provisions in place for the respective retirement groups. If defendants require clarification, it should be directed to the district court. Third, defendants claim it was error to declare that benefits for 1986-1993 retirees shall include 100% of out-patient expenses, thereby eliminating the 20% copay for all outpatient treatments, when the district court's opinion only eliminated copays for outpatient and diagnostic services. However, because the judgment declares the benefit for out-patient expenses as specified in the Court's Opinion, there is no obvious error and the district court should be able to clarify if necessary. [12] Coordination with Medicare (Pre-1986 Retirees). Lastly, defendants contend that the district court erred in finding that the parties intended to provide pre-1986 retirees with coordinated (rather than integrated) health insurance benefits. Coordinated benefits would mean 100% coverage between Medicare and health insurance, while integration would result in payment of no more than what the health insurance would pay in the absence of Medicare. Defendants rely on the statement in the Aetna SPD that, when Medicare benefits are available, the benefits of this plan will be reduced. Medicare and the plan together will now provide a level of benefits at least as high as that previously provided by the plan alone. (Emphasis added.) However, this neither precludes coordination nor specifies integration of Medicare benefits. Nor do defendants deny that the pre-1986 CBAs provided the same coordination of benefits as the General Motors-UAW, or that the extrinsic evidence showed that the parties intended coordination of benefits prior to 1986 and changed to an integrated program beginning in 1986. Bender, 725 F.Supp.2d at 663-64. Finally, continued reliance on evidence that medical insurance was integrated with Medicare when coverage was transferred to Great West is misplaced. Although the application for insurance with Great West did not reflect coordination of benefits, the evidence established that (1) Great West was expected to duplicate the coverage provided by Aetna; and (2) Great West corrected the error at Newell's direction several months later to provide pre-1986 retirees, only, with coordination of benefits with Medicare. If anything, this evidence supports the plaintiffs' contention that the parties intended that there be a vested right to coordination of benefits for pre-1986 retirees.