`Case 2:17-cv—00140-RWS—RSP Document 26-8 Filed 07/13/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 422
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT H
`EXHIBIT H
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00140-RWS-RSP Document 26-8 Filed 07/13/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 423
`
`Allegations1
`93. As required under ERISA § 503, 29
`U.S.C. § 1133, the PTG Pension Plan and
`the SBC Pension Plan had provisions (1)
`requiring that notice be given in writing to
`any participant whose claim for benefits
`under the Plans was denied, setting forth
`the specific reasons for such denial, and (2)
`affording a reasonable opportunity for a full
`and fair review of the decision denying the
`claim.
`129. Notice of, and the opportunity to
`review, the “specific plan provisions” on
`which a benefit denial is based is necessary
`for the establishment and maintenance of
`reasonable procedures for notification of
`benefit determinations.
`
`130. Notice of the specific plan provisions
`upon which the decision-maker relied in
`denying a claim provides the claimant with
`the opportunity to review the adequacy and
`accuracy of the claim denial and to challenge
`the denial if it is unsupported by provisions
`of the governing plan document.
`
`142. ERISA § 204(g) provides that “[t]he
`accrued benefit of a participant under a plan
`may not be decreased by an amendment of
`the plan.” Under 26 C.F.R. § 1.411(d)-3, “a
`plan amendment includes any changes to the
`terms of the plan.” Accrued benefits are
`considered “reduced” for purposes of ERISA
`§ 204(g) not only when they are decreased in
`size or eliminated entirely, but also when the
`plan imposes new conditions or materially
`greater restrictions on their receipt.
`
`
`
`
`1 Ex. A.
`2 See Ex. B.
`
`Responses2
`93. In answer to paragraph 93 of the
`Amended Complaint, Defendant states that
`the law speaks for itself and denies the
`allegations of paragraph 93 to the extent
`that they are contrary to or inconsistent
`with such laws.
`
`129. In answer to paragraph 129 of the
`Amended Complaint, there are no charging
`allegations calling for an admission or a
`denial. Rather, paragraph 129 consist of a
`legal assertion or a legal contention or a
`legal conclusion on the part of Plaintiff (it is
`not clear which). As such, Defendant
`neither admits nor denies the allegations
`contained in paragraph 129.
`130. In answer to paragraph 130 of the
`Amended Complaint, there are no charging
`allegations calling for an admission or a
`denial. Rather, paragraph 130 consist of a
`legal assertion or a legal contention or a
`legal conclusion on the part of Plaintiff (it is
`not clear which). As such, Defendant
`neither admits nor denies the allegations
`contained in paragraph 130.
`142. In answer to paragraph 142 of the
`Amended Complaint, Defendant admits
`that Plaintiff has quoted a portion of
`ERISA § 204(g) and a portion of 26 C.F.R.
`§ 1.411 (d)-3. The remainder of the
`allegations in paragraph 142 consist of a
`legal assertion or a legal contention or a
`legal conclusion on the part of Plaintiff (it is
`not clear which) that Defendant denies to
`the extent it is inconsistent with the
`governing statutes, regulations, court
`decisions and/or the facts of this case.
`
`