Wallace v. Johnson & Johnson, et al

Filing 920091014

Opinion

var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) )
var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 )
var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) )
var floatwnd = 0

var WPFootnote1 = 'Of the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.\
'

var WPFootnote2 = 'The Plan requires that the participant be disabled for 26\
continuous weeks before beginning to receive long-term disability\
benefits. In determining benefits, the Plan looks to the salary at\
the start of that 26-week period--here, such period for Wallace\
began in 2002--and, to the extent that commissions are included in\
the calculation, looks to average monthly commissions earned in the\
full calendar year prior to the year in which the 26-week period\
began (in this case, the relevant commissions year is 2001).\
'

var WPFootnote3 = 'The deference may be less generous where the deciding entity\
has a financial stake in the outcome, Metro Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn,\
128 S. Ct. 2343, 2348 (2008); but in the present case the Plan is\
funded by employee contributions--not those of Johnson & Johnson--and no argument has been made for such an adjustment to the\
standard of review.\
'

var WPFootnote4 = 'The Corporate Benefits letter of June 24, 2006, so explained\
the salary and benefits structure, so we need not rely on an\
affidavit filed by the company on this or any other issue. \
Accordingly, like the district court, we choose not to rely on the\
affidavits and so regard the motion to strike them as moot.\
'

var WPFootnote5 = 'See Liston v. Unum Corp. Officer Severance Plan, 330 F.3d 19,\
23 (1st Cir. 2003) (finding that a plan administrator\'s\
interpretation of a plan was reasonable although it differed from\
the literal reading advanced by the plaintiff, because the\
plaintiff\'s interpretation would have imprudent implications); cf.\
Clair v. Harris Trust & Sav. Bank, 190 F.3d 495, 499 (7th Cir.\
1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1157 (2000) (rejecting a plaintiff\'s\
literal reading of an ERISA plan because it would be impractical). \
'

function WPShow( WPid, WPtext )
{
if( bInlineFloats )
eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" );
else
{
if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed )
floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" );
floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( " p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } \r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( WPtext );
floatwnd.document.write( 'Close');
floatwnd.document.write( "