Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No. 06-2112
In Re:
ROZELLE
NFL
PLAYER
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:06-cv-00075; 02-80496; 04-1020-RGM)
Argued:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Wilber B. Marshall, Jr., and his trustee in bankruptcy
sued the Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan and the
NFL Player Supplemental Disability Plan (together, the Plan) under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C.
1132(a)(1)(B).
that
(1)
the
Plans
Retirement
Board
(the
Board)
erred
in
The
and
the
bankruptcy
court
entered
judgment
in
favor
of
I.
A.
The
Plan
provides
disability
benefits
to
vested
J.A. 39.
benefits.
The
Plan
provides
that
benefits
are
awarded
J.A. 39.
The Plan is administered by the Board, whose voting
J.A. 49-50.
If
B.
Marshall played NFL football for twelve seasons, retiring
in 1995.
5,
permanently
1998,
and
disabled.
determined
that
The
awarded
Board
he
was
totally
Marshall
and
benefits
reports:
one
from
Dr.
Collins,
who
opined
that
Marshall was still totally and permanently disabled; and one from
Dr. Richard Zipnick, who, in the course of treating Marshall for an
unrelated condition, opined that he was capable of doing desk work.
The Board consulted Dr. Collins, who then agreed with Dr. Zipnicks
disability
and
that
he
could
work
position.
in
sedentary
Marshalls June 5,
Dr. Doren
The
Marshall
then sent the Board two letters, the first requesting that the
effective date for the benefits be changed to December 2001 and the
second requesting that it be changed to February 8, 2002.
The
Board changed the effective date to January 1, 2002, the first day
of the month after Marshall was examined by Dr. Doren.
In
(approximately $72,000) that were denied to Marshall for an eightmonth period, May 2001 through December 2001.
on
the
administrative
record
or
by
taking
additional
evidence.
either
remand
to
the
Board
or
an
evidentiary
hearing
in
bankruptcy court and asked the court to decide the case based on
the administrative record. After requesting additional briefing on
the merits and considering the record, including Dr. Dorens report
concluding that Marshalls symptoms had remained consistent since
his first disability award, effective April 1997, the bankruptcy
award
benefits
retroactive
only
to
January
1,
2002,
was
II.
A.
We review the decision of a district court sitting in
review of a bankruptcy court de novo, applying the same standards
of review that were applied in the district court; specifically, we
review the bankruptcy courts findings of fact for clear error and
its conclusions of law de novo.
In an ERISA
confers
fiduciary.
discretionary
authority
on
the
administrator
or
Ellis v.
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 126 F.3d 228, 232-33 (4th Cir. 1997).
Under the abuse of discretion standard, a decision is reasonable if
it is the result of a deliberate, principled reasoning process and
Bernstein v. CapitalCare,
grants the Board the discretion to decide claims for benefits and
to interpret the terms of the Plan, we review the Boards decision
for abuse of discretion.
The central question here is whether the Board abused its
discretion by using as the disability onset date the date of Dr.
Dorens examination (December 7, 2001) that revealed Marshall was
totally and permanently disabled.
of
total
and
permanent
disability,
especially
when
the
the simple date of Dr. Dorens examination was not the only
information available to the Board from which to determine an onset
date. In that situation the Boards exclusive reliance on the date
of
the
doctors
examination
did
not
result
in
an
onset
10