Court Opinion

ID: 9392848
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-08 15:00:41.776134+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:49.146976
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                       ____________
No. 22-7124                                                  September Term, 2022
                                                                      1:21-cv-01483-CKK
                                                        Filed On: May 8, 2023
Ante Ljubicic,

                 Appellant

       v.

International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers,

                 Appellee

            ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

       BEFORE:         Millett, Wilkins, and Katsas, Circuit Judges

                                      JUDGMENT

        This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P.
34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

        ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order granting summary
judgment be affirmed. Appellant has forfeited any argument regarding his fraudulent
misrepresentation claim by failing to raise it in his briefs. See United States ex rel.
Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“Ordinarily, arguments
that parties do not make on appeal are deemed to have been waived.”). Regarding his
claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), appellant has not
demonstrated that the district court erred in concluding that the denial of his application
for pension benefits was the result of a deliberate and reasoned process and supported
by substantial evidence. See Marcin v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 861 F.3d 254,
262 (D.C. Cir. 2017). The employee benefit plan satisfied its requirement under ERISA
to “provide adequate notice in writing to any participant or beneficiary whose claim for
benefits under the plan has been denied . . . [and to] afford a reasonable opportunity . .
. for a full and fair review.” 29 U.S.C. § 1133(1)–(2). Further, the benefit plan trustees
reasonably determined that appellant was engaged in work that disqualified him from a
pension. And although appellant argues that the district court should have considered
materials that were not provided to the benefit plan trustees before they rendered their
decision, courts “review ERISA-plan benefit decisions on the evidence presented to the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 22-7124                                                September Term, 2022

plan administrators, not on a record later made in another forum.” Block v. Pitney
Bowes Inc., 952 F.2d 1450, 1455 (D.C. Cir. 1992).

        Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk
is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution
of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.
P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

                                       Per Curiam

                                          Page 2