Pickett v. UNITED MINE WKRS. OF AMERICA HEALTH, ETC.

Decision Date06 April 1978
Docket NumberNo. CIV-4-77-37.,CIV-4-77-37.
Citation467 F. Supp. 2
PartiesElmer PICKETT, Plaintiff, v. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA HEALTH AND RETIREMENT FUNDS et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee

Howard G. Swafford, Jasper, Tenn., for plaintiff.

E. H. Rayson and John T. Johnson, Jr., Knoxville, Tenn., and Henry S. Ruth, Jr., and Timothy J. Parsons, Washington, D. C., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION, ORDER AND REMAND

NEESE, District Judge.

This is a removed, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), civil action in which the plaintiff is seeking to recover disability benefits under an employee-benefit plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(1), (f). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Rules 56(a), (b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A United States magistrate of this district recommended that each such motion be denied, and that this action be remanded to the defendant trustees for the taking and consideration of additional evidence, or alternatively, that this action proceed to trial solely on the issues of whether the trustees acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or in bad faith in failing to afford the plaintiff the opportunity for a full and fair review of his claim. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The defendants served and filed timely written objections to such recommendation, and the undersigned judge considers de novo the portions of the magistrate's recommendation to which objections were made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

In order to be entitled to the pension benefits sought herein, the plaintiff Mr. Pickett was required to have established that he was totally and permanently disabled by a mine accident which occurred after May 29, 1946, while he was employed in a classified job for an employer which was a signatory to the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement, then in effect. It is undisputed that Mr. Pickett is totally and permanently disabled as a result of a mine accident which occurred after May 29, 1946; however, the defendants denied his claim for such benefits on the ground that, at the time of his accident (now claimed to be August 30, 1957), he was not employed in a classified job for an employer signatory to the aforementioned wage agreement.

There was evidence before the trustees indicating that, at the time of his accident, Mr. Pickett was not employed by the Earl Patton Coal Company as he claimed, but rather that he was self-employed as a nonsignatory to the wage agreement. However, in support of his motion for a summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted to this Court certain affidavits somewhat substantiating his contention that, on August 30, 1957, he was employed by the aforementioned coal company in a classified job, and that such employer was then a signatory to the aforementioned wage agreement. The plaintiff claims further herein that the defendants effectively denied him a full and fair review of his claim at which time he, presumably, would have presented additional evidence in support of his right to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Wardle v. Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • August 14, 1980
    ...the trustees for a new determination. See id. at 55 & n.10; Sturgill v. Lewis, 372 F.2d 400 (D.C.Cir.1966); Pickett v. UMW Health & Retirement Funds, 467 F.Supp. 2 (E.D.Tenn.1978); Ruth v. Lewis, 166 F.Supp. 346, 349 (D.D.C.1958). The parties agree that the substantive eligibility issue in ......
  • Maida v. Life Ins. Co. of North America, 96 Civ. 3621 (LAK).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • January 2, 1997
    ...District Council of Houston and Vicinity Pension Fund, 771 F.Supp. 807, 810 (E.D.Tex.1991); Pickett v. United Mine Workers of America Health and Retirement Funds, 467 F.Supp. 2, 4 (E.D.Tenn. 1978); see Baker v. United Mine Workers of America Health and Retirement Funds, 929 F.2d 1140, 1142-......
  • Daniel v. Eaton Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • March 17, 1988
    ...the trustees for a new determination. See id. at 55 & n. 10; Sturgill v. Lewis, 372 F.2d 400 (D.C.Cir.1966); Pickett v. UMW Health & Retirement Funds, 467 F.Supp. 2 (E.D.Tenn.1978); Ruth v. Lewis, 166 F.Supp. 346, 349 (Footnote omitted). In addition to the formal action of the Local Pension......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT