James v. AT&T West Disability Benefits Program

Filing 89

ORDER RE OBJECTIONS TO ABSTRACTS OF JUDGMENT re 81 , 82 , and 83 Abstracts of Judgment. The judgment of $55,861.69 in long-term disability benefits with prejudgment interest has been fully satisfied. While the Plan asks that the abstracts of judgment be VACATED, because the docket in this case is now clear that the judgment and award of attorneys fees have been satisfied, that request is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 03/13/2015. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9

DIANA JAMES,

Case No. 12-cv-06318-WHO

Plaintiff,
v.
AT&T WEST DISABILITY BENEFITS
PROGRAM, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

ORDER RE OBJECTIONS TO
ABSTRACTS OF JUDGMENT

Defendants.

12
13

Re: Dkt. Nos. 81, 82, 83

INTRODUCTION
Following entry of a judgment in her favor for improperly terminated long-term disability

14

benefits and an award of attorney’s fees, plaintiff filed three abstracts of judgment in this case.

15

Dkt Nos. 81-83. Defendant AT&T Umbrella Benefit Plan (Plan) objects to the abstracts, argues

16

that the judgment and award of attorney’s fees in this case have been fully satisfied, and asks me

17

to vacate the abstracts. Dkt. No. 84. Plaintiff admits that the payment of attorney’s fees has been

18

made – which was the subject of two of the abstracts – but contends that the Plan improperly

19

withheld income tax from the check it paid to plaintiff and, therefore, that the Plan has not fully

20

satisfied the judgment. Dkt. No. 86, 88. I find that the Plan was entitled to withhold the income

21

taxes at issue and that the judgment in this case has been fully satisfied.

22
23

BACKGROUND
In 2009, plaintiff Diana James became disabled during work and applied for long-term

24

disability benefits available to her under defendant AT&T Umbrella Benefit Plan No. 1 (“Plan”).

25

Compl. ¶¶ 3, 4. The Plan is self-insured by AT&T. Declaration of John D. Adkins ¶ 2 (Dkt. No.

26

36). The long-term disability program covered by the Plan is entirely paid for by AT&T. AR 807.

27

The long-term disability (LTD) program treats LTD payments as taxable income. AR 822.

28

The Plan denied benefits to James and James sued the Plan and defendant AT&T West

1

Disability Benefits Program (“Program”) to recover the benefits. Compl. ¶ 4, pg. 3. On July 18,

2

2014, I ruled in favor of James, finding that the Plan abused its discretion under the Employee

3

Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). Order on Cross Mots. For Summ. J. 44 (Dkt. No.

4

55). Subsequently, I entered a judgment awarding James $55,861.69 in long-term disability

5

benefits with prejudgment interest. Dkt. No. 69.
On August 27, 2014, the Plan paid James $32,546.13 to cover both the owed benefits and

6

the interest. Ex. A to Decl. of Rebecca K. Kimura (“Kimura Decl.”) ¶ 2 (Dkt. No. 85-1). The

8

gross amount of the payment was, consistent with the judgment and award of interest, $56,161.69,

9

but the Plan withheld $23,315.56 for tax purposes, making the net payment $32, 546.13.1 Id.; see

10

also Abstract of Judgment (Dkt. No. 83). On December 22, 2014, I awarded plaintiff $181,962.70

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

in attorney’s fees.
In early 2015, James filed three abstracts of judgment; the first covering the award of

12
13

attorney’s fees ($181,962.70), Dkt. No. 81; the second covering the award of attorney’s fees as

14

well as the $23,315.56 plaintiff claims is still outstanding on the judgment, Dkt. No. 82; and a

15

third covering only the $23,315.56 plaintiff believes is outstanding on the judgment. Dkt. No. 83.2

16

Id. James seeks either to recover the $23,315.56 that was withheld or, in the alternative, to compel

17

the Plan to recalculate the benefit withholding to a lower amount pursuant to the W-4 form James

18

provided to the Plan on October 5, 2014. Id.; Ex. 2 to Padway Decl. ¶ 3 (Dkt. No. 86-3).

19

LEGAL STANDARD
Under 26 U.S.C. § 104(a), gross income includes amounts received through “accident or

20
21

health insurance . . . for personal injuries or sickness” where “such amounts (A) are attributable to

22

contributions by the employer which were not includible in the gross income of the employee, or

23

(B) are paid by the employer.” See also 26 U.S.C. § 105(a) (“amounts received by an employee

24

through accident or health insurance for personal injuries or sickness shall be included in gross

25
26
27
28

1
2

The Plan withheld $17,263.22 for federal taxes and $6,352.34 for state taxes. Id.
The Plan claims that James also filed a fourth abstract in state court. Def.’s Objections 3; Reply
4. The parties agree that the attorney’s fee award has been satisfied. Dkt. Nos. 87, 88. Plaintiff
also admits that the second abstract, Dkt. No. 82, was duplicative. Pl. Oppo. at 3. Therefore, the
only abstract/question that is at issue is the satisfaction of the judgment and whether withholding
the $23,315.56 was appropriate.
2

1

income to the extent such amounts (1) are attributable to contributions by the employer which

2

were not included in the gross income or the employee, or (2) are paid by the employer.”). Under

3

26 C.F.R. § 31.3401(a)-1(a)(8) amounts paid under accident or health plans are considered wages

4

and income tax withholding is mandatory for payments attributable to employer contributions

5

under 26 U.S.C. § 105(a). That regulation also recognizes that “third party payments” of sick pay,

6

are not wages for purposes of that section, but that payments made by an agent of the employer

7

are considered wages and subject to withholding. 26 C.F.R. § 31.3401(a)-1(a)(8) & (b)(1)-(2).3

8

Employers include persons “having control of the payments” of wages (26 U.S.C. § 3401(d)) and

9

trusts who pay wages where the person for whom work services were performed “has no legal
control over the payment of such wages.” 26 C.F.R. § 31.3401(d)-1(f). Finally, the determining

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

factor whether a third party is an agent of the employer is whether the third-party bears an

12

insurance risk. 26 C.F.R. § 31.3401(a)-1(b)(1).4

13

DISCUSSION

14

Here, there is no dispute that the Plan is both self-insured and that the LTD coverage was

15

paid for by the employer. Adkins Decl. ¶ 2; AR 807. Therefore, this is not a case where a third-

16

party – like an insurance company – is being paid an insurance premium to provide employees

17

LTD coverage and withholding is at the option of the beneficiary. But see 26 C.F.R. §§

18

31.3401(a)-1(a)(8) & (b)(1); 26 U.S.C. § 3402(o). Instead, this is a situation where the Plan – as

19

either the employer or as the agent of the employer – is making that payment. 26 C.F.R. §

20

31.3401(d)-1(f); 26 C.F.R. § 31.3401(a)-1.5 The LTD payments, therefore, are wages subject to

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

For “sick pay” payments made by third-parties, the provisions of 26 U.S.C. § 3402(c) govern.
See 26 C.F.R. § 31.3401(a)-1(a)(8).
4
“If the third party bears no insurance risk and is reimbursed on a cost plus fee basis, the third
party is an agent of the employer even if the third party is responsible for making determinations
of the eligibility of individual employees of the employer for sick pay payments. If the third party
is paid an insurance premium and not reimbursed on a cost plus fee basis, the third party is not an
agent of the employer, but the third party is a payor of third party sick pay for purposes of
voluntary withholding from sick pay under sections 3402(o).” 26 C.F.R. § 31.3401(a)-1(b)(1).
5
Because the employer paid for the LTD coverage, the LTD payments could also be considered
“attributable to contributions of the employer which were not includible in the gross income of the
employee” and therefore considered as gross income subject to mandatory withholding. 26 U.S.C.
105(a); 26 C.F.R. § 31.3401(a)-1(a)(8). Plaintiff does not dispute that AT&T’s contributions to
the Plan were not includible in her gross income.
3

1

mandatory withholding. 26 C.F.R. § 31.3401(a)-1(a)(8).

2

The fact that the judgment did not specifically allow the Plan to withhold income tax does

3

not change this analysis. The only case relied on by plaintiff for this proposition, Redfield v. Ins.

4

Co. of N. Am., 940 F.2d 542, 548 (9th Cir. 1991), simply held that a judgment in an Age

5

Discrimination and Employment Act case was properly considered tort-like damages exempt

6

from gross income (and withholding). Not only was that case superseded on its merits by Comm’r

7

v. Schleier, 515 U.S. 323 (1995), it did not address whether a judgment is satisfied where taxes are

8

withheld from the amount of a judgment awarded by a court.

9

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, I find that the judgment of $55,861.69 in long-term disability

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

benefits with prejudgment interest has been fully satisfied. While the Plan asks that the abstracts

12

of judgment be VACATED, because the docket in this case is now clear that the judgment and

13

award of attorney’s fees have been satisfied, that request is DENIED as moot.6

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 13, 2015
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6

I note that there is no evidence that plaintiff has recorded the abstracts of judgment with any
county. If plaintiff has, and has not notified or does not notify those counties of the satisfaction of
the judgment, the Plan may invoke the remedies provided by California Code of Civil Procedure §
724.050.
4