Opinion ID: 199581
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Penalties for Failure to Provide Plan Documents

Text: 34 Finally, Sullivan appeals the district court's decision not to impose penalties against MetLife pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(c)(1) 9 for failing to provide documents about the long term disability plan. The district court noted that there was disputed evidence about whether Sullivan did or did not receive the documents, but found that whether or not he had the plan documents, Sullivan exercised his rights under the plan and provided the type of [medical] information that was required for a decision to be made. Because MetLife carefully analyzed the medical evidence and relied on it, the district court concluded that Sullivan had not been prejudiced even if Raytheon had not furnished the documents he requested. We review the court's determination for abuse of discretion. See Rodriguez-Abreu v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 986 F.2d 580, 588 (1st Cir. 1993). 35 As the district court found, Sullivan has offered no evidence that MetLife acted in bad faith in not providing him with the documents in a more timely fashion. Additionally, Sullivan has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by any delay in receiving the documents. We agree with Sullivan that showings of bad faith and prejudice are not necessary for a court to award penalties under § 1132(c)(1). See id. at 588 ([P]rejudice and bad faith are not prerequisites for imposition of penalties.). However, the district court did not require Sullivan to prove that Raytheon acted in bad faith or that he was prejudiced. Instead, the court appropriately cited the absence of those factors among the reasons for its decision not to award penalties. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's ruling. See id. at 588-89 (finding no abuse of discretion where the district court considered the absence of prejudice and bad faith in declining to award penalties). 36 Affirmed.