`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.
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
