This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
Workers' Compensation
ERISA

Ray A. Deloach v. San Diego Gas & Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company Pension Plan, Sempra Energy

Published: May 9, 2009 | Result Date: Sep. 25, 2008 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 07 CV 1046-LAB(CAB) Bench Decision –  Defense

Court

USDC Southern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

John P. Stennett


Defendant

Horace W. Green
(Brothers Smith LLP)


Facts

In October 1997, plaintiff Ray A. Deloach, a heavy equipment operator employed by the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDGE), suffered an injuring at work that resulted in chronic back and neck pain, and knee problems. His injuries required pain medication that subjected him to various side effects.

Deloach filed for total disability income benefits and was approved. However, these benefits were less than his workers' compensation payments. Therefore, Deloach chose to receive only workers' compensation benefits. These payments were set to end in June 2006.

SDGE scheduled a doctor's appointment for Deloach in order to get on disability after his workers' compensation benefits ended. However, the doctor concluded Deloach was fit for other types of employment. In April 2006, Deloach was informed he would not be receiving total disability income payments.

Deloach filed suit against SDGE and the company's pension plan, including Sempra Energy for improper withholding of benefits.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that his claims were timely filed and that all terms as well as conditions were satisfied so that he rightfully qualified for total disability income payments. He further claimed that all administrative remedies had been exhausted.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended that plaintiff did not qualify under the plan's definition of "disability" and thus, was ineligible for payment.

Injuries

The plaintiff sought the value of benefits to which he was denied. He also asked for a declaration entitling him to plan benefits and sought attorney fees plus costs.

Result

The judge granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Other Information

The plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration.


#85763

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390