Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Justices make it easier for employees to win legal fees in disability cases

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Disability Donate to DU
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 09:27 PM
Original message
Justices make it easier for employees to win legal fees in disability cases
Legal Times article

Workers suing over disability and other benefits under the federal law known as ERISA may win attorney fees and costs if they achieve "some degree of success on the merits," a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday.

In Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co., the justices rejected a tougher standard imposed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit on fee claimants under the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act. The lower appellate court had ruled that a claimant must be a "prevailing party" before seeking a fee award.

The justices' ruling came in a case brought by Bridget Hardt, who sought long-term disability benefits as a result of job-related carpal tunnel syndrome. Hardt was awarded the benefits, but in March 2006, Reliance informed her that she was ineligible for continued long-term benefits. She sued the insurance company, claiming ERISA violations.

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202458...


The 4th Circuit Judges who are responsible for the former result

Wilkinson, James Harvie III, Nominated by Ronald Reagan on January 30, 1984 (once interviewed by Bush for SCOTUS)
Faber, David A., Nominated by George H.W. Bush on August 1, 1991 (District Judge, sitting by designation).

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/081896.U.pdf


SCOTUS Decision

THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court (assigned by Roberts), in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, ALITO, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined, and in which STEVENS, J., joined as to Parts I and II. STE-VENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

Opinion of the Court:

These facts establish that Hardt has achieved far more than trivial success on the merits or a purely procedural victory. Accordingly, she has achieved some success on the merits, and the District Court properly exercised its discretion to award Hardt attorneys fees in this case.Because these conclusions resolve this case, we need not decide today whether a remand order, without more, constitutes some success on the merits sufficient to make a party eligible for attorneys fees under 1132(g)(1).9

* * * We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and remand this case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.


JUSTICE STEVENS, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment:

While I join the Courts judgment and Parts I and II of its opinion, I do not believe that our mistaken interpretation of 307(f) of the Clean Air Act in Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, 463 U. S. 680 (1983), should be given any special weight in the interpretation of thisor any otherdifferent statutory provision. The outcome in that closely divided case turned, to a significant extent, on a judgment about how to read the legislative history of the provision in question. Compare id., at 686693, with id., at 703706 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). I agree with the Court in this case that 29 U. S. C. 1132(g)(1) does not impose a prevailing party requirement; I agree, further, that the District Court acted well within its discretion in awarding attorneys fees to this petitioner. But I would examine the text, structure, and history of any other federal statute authorizing an award of fees before concluding that Congress intended the same approach under that statute asunder this one.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-448.pdf

Refresh | +3 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-24-10 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. OUR Supreme Court?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 26th 2014, 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Disability Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC