Ninth Circuit goes 'off the rails' by shifting the burden of proof in ERISA claims

As a general matter, a participant bears the burden of proving his entitlement to benefits. This makes sense in cases in which the participant has "better-or at least equal-access to the evidence to prove entitlement," such as in the case of proving qualification for disability benefits.1...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Benefits law journal 2017-03, Vol.30 (1), p.6
Main Author: Costin, Emily Seymour
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Burden of proof
Committees
Disability insurance
District courts
Documentation
Employees
Employers
Employment
ERISA
Evidence
Federal court decisions
Fines & penalties
Insurance claims
Laws, regulations and rules
Participation
Pension plans
Pensions
Security services
State court decisions
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:As a general matter, a participant bears the burden of proving his entitlement to benefits. This makes sense in cases in which the participant has "better-or at least equal-access to the evidence to prove entitlement," such as in the case of proving qualification for disability benefits.1 But what happens when the company or employer solely controls the information that determines entitlement? Must a former employee who quit working for the company more than 25 years ago decipher the corporate structure of his former employer without access to necessary documents? Should he have saved all of his pay stubs on the off chance that his employer would demand proof that he worked the requisite number of hours to obtain a pension? Or should the company or employer bear this burden? These are the very questions recently considered by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in In Estate of Barton v. ADT Sec. Services Pension Plan.2 In a split decision, a majority of the Ninth Circuit panel held that ERISA3 and "common sense" dictate that the corporate defendant "should not lay that arduous task at the feet of former employees."4 This panel majority noted that "to hold otherwise would essentially reward Lucy for pulling the football away from Charlie Brown."5 Though a strong dissent contends the majority "goes off the rails" by shifting the burden of proof in this manner, this decision is now binding (at least in the Ninth Circuit).6 While it remains to be seen whether this case will result in a new "burden shifting" standard or be limited to the unique facts of this particular case, this decision provides a good reminder for employers and plan administrators to revisit their policies and practices for retaining pertinent plan and employment records.
ISSN:0897-7992