Opinion ID: 196516
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Disability Benefits

Text: 56 At trial, Nadal-Ginard argued that because the district court nullified the Banks Plan, it implicitly confirmed the existence of the Nadeau plan. 11 Nadal-Ginard further claimed that, as a result of his medical condition, he was totally disabled and therefore eligible for severance benefits under the terms of the Nadeau plan. Accordingly, Nadal-Ginard sought to reduce the amount of damages attributed to his fiduciary transgressions with respect to the Banks plan in an amount equal to the Nadeau plan severance benefits. 57 The district court denied Nadal-Ginard's claim on two grounds. First, it found evidence that suggested that Nadal-Ginard's BCHF employment was involuntarily terminated, thereby working a forfeiture of any benefits to which he otherwise would have been eligible. Second, the district court found that Nadal-Ginard had failed to prove that he was totally disabled, and therefore was not eligible to receive benefits under the plan. Nadal-Ginard challenges both findings on appeal. We begin our analysis by detailing the severance benefit framework of the Nadeau plan. 58 Under section 4.1 of this plan, a participant is eligible for severance benefits upon Total Disability. This condition is defined in section 2.13 of the plan as an inability to perform usual and customary duties for [BCHF] as a result of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment.... Section 2.13 further provides that [t]he receipt by a Participant of payments under any long term disability income insurance policy ... shall be deemed to be ... prima facie evidence of such Total Disability in the absence of a contrary finding by [a] physician. 59 The mere fact that an individual is eligible to receive severance benefits as a result of a disability does not necessary entitle him to those benefits, however. Indeed, section 4.2 of the plan provides for the forfeiture of all benefits by participants in certain circumstances, including BCHF's termination of a participant's employment. 60 The district court found that Nadal-Ginard was involuntarily terminated from his position at BCHF. 12 As section 4.2 contains no language limiting the time frame during which this provision applies, we find that the district court correctly interpreted the provision as barring the receipt of any benefits by Nadal-Ginard. As such, we need not address Nadal-Ginard's claim of eligibility for the benefits as a result of his medical condition, and we turn to address his final allegation of error.