Sturgill v. Lewis, 20031.

• Decision Date: 28 December 1966
• Docket Number: No. 20031.,20031.
• Citation: 372 F.2d 400,125 US App. DC 335
• Parties: Lawrence STURGILL, Appellant, v. John L. LEWIS et al., Trustees, Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

125 US App. DC 335, 372 F.2d 400 (1966)

Lawrence STURGILL, Appellant, v. John L. LEWIS et al., Trustees, Appellees.

No. 20031.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued October 26, 1966.

Decided December 28, 1966.

Mr. Ronald D. Haggart, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Byron K. Welch, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Charles L. Widman, Washington, D. C., for appellees. Messrs. Edward L. Carey, Val J. Mitch and Joseph T. McFadden, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for appellees. Mr. Welly K. Hopkins, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellees.

Before FAHY, WRIGHT and TAMM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellees are Trustees of the United Mine Workers Welfare and Retirement Fund of 1950, an irrevocable trust created pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 186 (c) (5) by its settlors, Coal Operators Signatory to the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1950 and a labor union, the United Mine Workers of America. Appellant is an applicant for a pension from the Fund. The Trustees denied his application on the ground that he had not established proof of twenty years' classified service in the Bituminous Coal Industry within the 25-year period immediately preceding his application for a pension. In the District Court the Trustees abandoned¹ this basis for denial of appellant's application, and urged his age at the time the application was filed as a bar. The District Court, after a trial de novo, dismissed appellant's claim for relief on this latter ground.

In Danti v. Lewis, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 105, 312 F.2d 345 (1962), this court held that "the District Court's duty was to determine whether the material then before the Trustees was sufficient to support their decision," and not to try "the case de novo on a factual issue not presented in the administrative record before it * * *." 114 U.S.App.D.C. at 109, 110, 312 F.2d at 349, 350. Under the circumstances, this court has no alternative but to vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand the case with instructions to remand it to the Trustees for resolution of the factual issue determined de novo by the District Court.

Since the Trustees perform their function as such pursuant to an Act of Congress in an area of social concern and importance, not only to miners like appellant who have applied for pensions, but to future applicants as well whose pension rights may be jeopardized by depletion of the Fund through improper disposition...