Main Menu
  • Posts by V. Brandon McGrath

    Brandon is an attorney in the firm's Cincinnati office and a member of the Litigation Department. He works with individuals and companies, both large and small, to resolve a variety of disputes and lawsuits. Brandon's practice ...

Posted in Litigation

Last week, the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Indiana issued an order authorizing use of predictive coding on electronically stored information (ESI) in a multi-district products liability case, despite warnings from the plaintiffs’ steering committee to refrain from conducting discovery until a centralization order was entered.

The defendant, Biomet ...

On April 26, 2012, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York upheld a magistrate judge’s opinion ordering the parties to use predictive coding to review and produce electronically stored information (ESI). This is a key decision because it is the first known federal court ruling that specifically addresses the use of computer-assisted document review.

For anyone who handles matters related to plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., looking first to the plan language is key to resolving most issues that arise with employee benefit plans.  Both plan administrators and beneficiaries can save significant time and expense by carefully reading the plan documents and then applying the terms of the plan to any particular issue.  While many cases arise where there is a dispute as to what a particular term means, this article will focus on ERISA’s mandate that the plan language controls the rights and benefits of those governed by the plan.

Traditionally, ERISA restricts plan participants to equitable relief with no recourse to money damages on behalf of themselves as individuals. ERISA Section 502(a)(3); Mertens v Hewitt & Assoc. 508 US 248 (1993); In re Cardinal health Inc. ERISA Litig. 424 F.Supp. 2d 1025.

As discussed in previous issues of Kentucky Employment Law Letter, employers and employees continue to enter into binding arbitration agreements under which both sides agree to resolve any disputes arising out of the employment relationship before an arbitrator. Usually, that means the employee doesn’t have the option of seeking a judicial remedy. But if you’re thinking about entering into an arbitration arrangement with your employees, you should proceed cautiously. Read on to learn more about some of the potential pitfalls that may result when litigating the validity of an arbitration agreement.

Recovering overpaid benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan can present a variety of problems for the fiduciary in charge of the plan. Arguably, the fiduciary has a duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to recover overpaid benefits.



Recent Posts




Back to Page