Taylor v. General Motors Corp.

• Decision Date: 14 August 1987
• Docket Number: No. 84-1503,84-1503
• Citation: 826 F.2d 452
• Parties: 109 Lab.Cas. P 55,934 Arthur TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 452

826 F.2d 452

109 Lab.Cas. P 55,934

Arthur TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 84-1503.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued June 17, 1987.

Decided Aug. 14, 1987.

David M. Davis (argued), Detroit, Mich., Gilbert Y. Rubenstein, Rubenstein, Pruchnicki, Chittle and Smith, Flint, Mich., William J. Toppeta, James M. Lenaghan (argued), Susan M. Greidman, New York City, for defendants-appellees.

Dennis P. Brescoll (argued), Mount Clemens, Mich., for plaintiff-appellant.

Before WELLFORD and MILBURN, Circuit Judges and KINNEARY ^*, Senior District Judge.

WELLFORD, Circuit Judge.

Arthur Taylor, plaintiff, sued his former employer, General Motors Corporation (General Motors) and the insurance carrier for the General Motors employee benefit plan, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Metropolitan) following the termination of Taylor's employment. Plaintiff claimed three causes of action: (1) wrongful failure by General Motors to promote him over a number of years and termination in retaliation for his filing of workers compensation claims; (2) wrongful failure of General Motors and Metropolitan to afford him disability benefits under the salaried employees' benefit program (an ERISA plan); and (3) wrongful discharge by General Motors through breach of contract and failure to adhere to its "open door" and discharge "for cause only" policies.

The district court granted defendants summary judgment. See Taylor v. General Motors Corp., 588 F.Supp. 562 (E.D.Mich.1984). We reversed this decision, holding that the controversy should have been remanded to district court, because we held that removal of the case from state court was improper "where the well-pleaded complaint in this instance failed to raise a federal question." Taylor v. General Motors, 763 F.2d 216, 220 (6th Cir.1985).

The Supreme Court granted certiorari and held that we had been in error in ordering a remand, because "this suit, though it purports to raise only state law claims, is necessarily federal in character by virtue of the clearly manifested intent of Congress." Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, --- U.S. ----, ----, 107 S.Ct. 1542, 1548, 95 L.Ed.2d 55 (1987). Following receipt of the mandate covering this reversal and remand, we directed supplemental briefing and oral argument. We now AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Taylor was a salaried employee with General Motors, beginning employment in 1959, working as a fifth level engineering analyst with the Fisher Body Division. In September of that year he was promoted to a sixth level quality control analyst, and in March 1960 was once again promoted to a seventh level senior engineer. At this time he was transferred to the Chevrolet central office.

In 1960, plaintiff entered into an employee contract which provided in part:

2. The Employe acknowledges that his employment under this agreement is from month to month only on a calendar month basis.

* * *

* * *

6. The employer and the Employe acknowledge that there are no other arrangements, agreements, or understandings, verbal or in writing, regarding same and that any modification or amendment hereof, other than a cancellation and replacement hereof by another written form of agreement, must be endorsed hereon in writing and initialed by both the Employe and the Employer.

The following month plaintiff was given an employee handbook entitled "Working With General Motors." This handbook outlined General Motor's policy of promoting from within, and also stated General Motor's "open door" policy. In essence, this latter policy is best summarized in the handbook as follows:

In general terms, the policy is simply an attitude of fair and friendly consideration for each individual's viewpoint. More specifically, it invites you to express yourself freely to your supervisor about your job or about General Motors policies. If you have a problem, a misunderstanding or a request, talk to your supervisor about it. If he is not able to give you a satisfactory answer, he will arrange for your problem to be taken to the proper authority--your general supervisor, the Personnel Department, your General Manager or his designated representative, or, in unusual cases, the General Motors Central Office in Detroit.

In 1961, while visiting a General Motors facility in Framingham, Massachusetts, plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident. As a result of this accident, plaintiff was treated for back, neck, and leg pain, and he took a two to three week leave of absence from work. Following this accident plaintiff began receiving Blue Cross/Blue Shield benefits, which were halted when the insurer learned that plaintiff's accident was work-related. Thereafter plaintiff sought compensation from General Motors.

Since General Motors denied any responsibility or liability for the accident, plaintiff obtained an attorney to file a worker's compensation claim. The claim was finally resolved only after consultation with supervisors and management, through the "open door" policy, sometime in 1965. As a result of the accident and claim for compensation, plaintiff claims that animosity arose between his supervisors and himself. He claims that this resulted generally in his receiving no promotions and poor performance reports. ¹

Between 1966 and 1980 plaintiff instituted a letter writing campaign whereby he decided to take further advantage of General Motors' open door policy. Through various letters to upper level management, plaintiff complained of his lack of promotion and also sought, among other things, a transfer to a "warmer climate." In August 1978 plaintiff was placed on medical travel restrictions. After a five and one-half month sick leave, plaintiff returned to work and was assigned a less vigorous job. His pay remained the same, though the job itself was one involving less responsibility than plaintiff had previously enjoyed.

In May 1980 plaintiff began consulting a licensed psychologist, Andrew T. Yang, Ph.D., because of emotional problems he was then having. According to plaintiff, he was experiencing a very messy divorce and child custody battle, leading to "sheer depression" and "suicidal tendencies." As a result of his emotional problems, plaintiff took another leave of absence from work, and also notified Metropolitan that he had become totally disabled. Accompanying this notice was a statement from Dr. Yang that plaintiff was suffering from a situational anxiety reaction and should not return to work. In a letter from Dr. Yang to Dr. Stephen A. Evanoff, plaintiff's treating physician, Dr. Yang also suggested that plaintiff might be suffering back problems.

Upon receipt of plaintiff's notice of disability, Metropolitan commenced paying benefits. At the same time, realizing that Dr. Yang was not a physician, Metropolitan promptly scheduled plaintiff for a psychiatric examination. Dr. Gordon Forrer, a licensed psychiatrist, examined plaintiff and concluded that, as an initial matter, plaintiff was to be considered disabled. He recommended, however, that a follow-up examination be held in six weeks. After conducting this follow-up examination, Dr. Forrer concluded that plaintiff was not disabled and could return to work.

Plaintiff then filed a supplementary claim with Metropolitan seeking disability benefits for orthopedic reasons. Plaintiff at this time was placed on special leave of absence without pay pending investigation of this supplementary claim. In July 1980, plaintiff was directed by Metropolitan to have an orthopedic examination by Dr. N.K. Wilson, who initially found no orthopedic problem indicating disability. Later, upon studying x-rays taken by Dr. Evanoff, Dr. Wilson again concluded that plaintiff suffered no orthopedic disability.

Previously, in August of 1980, General Motors informed plaintiff that he had been found not disabled, and that his file would be further considered by Metropolitan, the disability insurance carrier. Metropolitan had ceased paying benefits in July of 1980. Plaintiff then filed a second workers' compensation claim against General Motors, which terminated disability benefits on July 30, 1980.

In October of 1980, Metropolitan informed both plaintiff and General Motors that it had reviewed Taylor's evidence and concluded that plaintiff was not disabled. It thus also refused to pay any benefits beyond July 30, 1980. Accordingly, on October 31, 1980, plaintiff was requested to report to the Chevrolet Central Office medical department for a medical examination. On November 5, 1980, plaintiff was examined by a General Motors' physician who concluded that plaintiff was able to resume his duties.

Rather than return to work as requested, plaintiff continued to insist that he was disabled. General Motors finally notified plaintiff that his employment had been terminated as of November 5, since he was deemed a "voluntary quit."

I. METROPOLITAN'S LIABILITY FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS CLAIM

The terms of the Metropolitan insurance contract provided disability benefits only when the employee was "wholly and continuously disabled" from performing "any and every" job duty. Also, for benefit eligibility, the employee had to be under the care of a legally licensed physician. With respect to claimed emotional problems, Taylor was never under the care of a licensed physician. Dr. Yang, his psychologist, was not a medical doctor, as required. The only licensed psychiatrist to examine plaintiff found him fit to return to duty after the opportunity for several examinations. Taylor therefore had no claim against Metropolitan for a disabling emotional condition.

Concerning plaintiff's asserted back problems, not a single doctor who examined plaintiff found him wholly and continuously disabled within the meaning of the insurance contract. All the orthopedic specialists agreed that no disabling orthopedic...