Opinion ID: 35245
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ogden's Counterclaim for Benefits 58

Text: 40 The district court held that Ogden's counterclaim for benefits from May 2000 to date was barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; specifically, for not complying with the Plan's claim-review procedures. 59 We have held that claimants seeking benefits from an ERISA plan must first exhaust available administrative remedies under the plan before bringing suit to recover benefits. 60 Here, the Plan's documents require a participant to file an administrative appeal of the denial of a claim for benefits within 90 days after being notified that the claim has been denied. In the district court, Ogden argued that any attempt to exhaust her administrative remedies would have been futile, but she has not advanced this limited exception to the exhaustion requirement on appeal. 61 Neither has she challenged the district court's finding that she failed to comply with the Plan's claim review procedures. Instead, Ogden merely asserts that, in the event we hold that she is not contractually liable under the Reimbursement Agreement for the Social Security benefits received by her adult daughters — an issue that we do not reach as a result of our finding that CBA failed to state a federal common law cause of action — then she is entitled to recover the amount of her plan benefits that CBA suspended through exercise of its setoff rights. As Ogden has not shown on appeal that she exhausted her administrative remedies, or that her efforts to exhaust would have been futile, we must affirm the district court's conclusion that her counterclaim is barred for failure to exhaust, and thus we affirm the court's grant of summary judgment dismissing her counterclaim.