Opinion ID: 63326
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: overtime pay; or

Text: 2. any other fringe benefit or extra compensation. Calendar year(s) earnings will be averaged for the lesser of: 1. the prior calendar year(s) before the date your Period of Disability begins or 2. the period of employment if less than one calendar year(s). ProAmerica reported that Dunn’s monthly salary prior to his stroke was $4,000.00. Based on this information, GEGLAC calculated Dunn’s BME to be $4,000.00 and paid him the correlative monthly benefit from December 1997 to October 2002, the maximum period of eligibility under the Plan. In November 2002, Dunn requested a review of his monthly benefit calculation. Dunn argued that GEGLAC’s BME calculation erroneously omitted $6,171.00 in commissions that were paid to Dunn by ProAmerica prior to his stroke. GEGLAC agreed with Dunn and adjusted his BME from $4,000.00 to $4,508.53. This increase accounted for the previously omitted commissions. GEGLAC issued a check in the amount of $20,225.79, representing the additional amount of monthly benefits owed during Dunn’s period of eligibility. 2 No. 07-10739 In February 2003, Dunn requested another review. This time he argued that his BME should be adjusted to account for an additional $9,600.00 in commissions that he earned prior to his stroke, even though those commissions were not paid by ProAmerica until after his stroke. GEGLAC denied Dunn’s request for a recalculation because the additional commissions were not actually paid “prior to [Dunn’s] Period of Disability.” Dunn sued GEGLAC in Texas state court, alleging only state law causes of action. GEGLAC removed on the basis of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) preemption, see 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., and Dunn amended his complaint to allege only an ERISA-based cause of action. GEGLAC’s summary judgment motion was denied. The court conducted a bench trial which resulted in a judgment against GEGLAC. The parties stipulated that the benefits under Dunn’s interpretation would be $36,618.46. Judgment in that amount was entered. GEGLAC appeals, arguing that the district court erred by (1) finding that GEGLAC’s interpretation of the plan was not “legally correct” and (2) holding that GEGLAC’s decision to include only those commissions actually paid in the BME calculation constituted an abuse of discretion.