TITLE

Canadian court decisions highlight obscure disability benefit rules

AUTHOR(S)
Gonzalez, Gloria
PUB. DATE
May 2006
SOURCE
Business Insurance;5/29/2006, Vol. 40 Issue 22, p21
SOURCE TYPE
Periodical
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
The article focuses on court decisions which highlight some obscure disability-related liabilities facing Canadian employers as of May 2006. In two cases, courts have held employers responsible for providing disability benefits for an unspecified period after terminating employees, highlighting an exposure that is usually uninsurable in Canada. In another case, a court ruled that employers can be held solely liable for damages when long-term disability benefits are denied incorrectly even if the denial was made by the administrator of the benefit rather than the employer.
ACCESSION #
21194852

 

Related Articles

  • Appeals for disability benefits face long wait, case backlog. Tramer, Harriet // Crain's Cleveland Business;1/8/2007, Vol. 28 Issue 1, p14 

    The article reports that the clients of disability benefits have to wait a long period for decision from a federal administrative law judge in Cleveland, Ohio. Mark Lassiter, an officer with Social Security's National Press Office, provided figures illustrating that the number of pending cases...

  • Defendant Never Signed CBA but Is Liable Through Course of Conduct.  // Legal-Legislative Reporter;Feb2008, Vol. 42 Issue 2, p10 

    The article discusses a court case in which the U.S. District Courts in Oregon ruled that the defendant firm is still liable for fringe benefits contributions even if it had not signed a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The courts notes that since the firm hired union workers, submitted a...

  • Other Recent Decisions of Significance.  // Benefits & Compensation Digest;Jun2005, Vol. 42 Issue 6, p11 

    Presents information on two court decisions regarding employee benefits. Alleged violations of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 by a third-party plan administrator; Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and...

  • Worker fired for gross misconduct? No COBRA.  // HR Specialist: Employment Law;Nov2012, Vol. 42 Issue 11, p1 

    The article discusses a court case of an employee named Michael who was terminated on his company after a screaming match with one of his co-workers, in which the company ruled that Michael must be terminated and denied for Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act insurance coverage.

  • RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPLOYEE BENEFITS LAW. Rose, Jonathan G.; Durnwald, Michael R. // Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal;Spring2008, Vol. 43 Issue 3, p333 

    The article surveys recent developments in employee benefits law during the latter half of 2006 and earlier half of 2007. The first portion of this article reviews important judicial developments involving employee benefits and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended. It...

  • Plaintiff Fails to Establish That Termination Violated ERISA Section 510.  // Legal-Legislative Reporter;May2007, Vol. 41 Issue 5, p10 

    The article discusses a court case wherein the plaintiff has not proven illegal discrimination by the defendant when he got fired after receiving short-term disability benefits. The defendant was reportedly able to confirm through investigation that the plaintiff's real medical condition...

  • Court Reinstates Disability Benefits for Failure to Comply With ERISA.  // Legal-Legislative Reporter;Jul2007, Vol. 41 Issue 7, p8 

    The article discusses a court case wherein the U.S. Court of Appeals denied the appeal of the defendant-company, where it acted capriciously and arbitrarily denied the plaintiff's application for long-term disability benefits. Accordingly, defendant-company did not satisfy the notice...

  • OTHER Recent DECISIONS.  // Legal-Legislative Reporter;Oct2008, Vol. 42 Issue 10, p15 

    This section presents a summary of cases related to employee benefits and compensation in the U.S. In Evans et al. v. Akers et al., a putative class action suit was filed by the plaintiff against various plan fiduciaries. In Gates v. UNUM Life Insurance Co., the plaintiff's claim for long-term...

  • OTHER Recent DECISIONS.  // Legal-Legislative Reporter;Dec2008, Vol. 42 Issue 12, p15 

    The article presents several court cases related to employee benefits industry. In a case involving breach of fudiciary duty, a plaintiff's allegation that the defendant used claims management policies was dismissed by the court. In relation to retiree health benefits, the court made a...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics