No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The court affirmed the plan administrator's termination of plaintiff's long-term disability benefits, finding no abuse of discretion in the determination that plaintiff could perform certain occupations with accommodations and therefore did not meet the plan's definition of total disability.
Graeber v. Hewlett Packard: Long-Term Disability Benefits Case
What Happened
A former Hewlett Packard employee (Graeber) filed a lawsuit after the company's benefits plan stopped paying his long-term disability benefits. Graeber claimed he was totally disabled and should continue receiving payments. The plan administrator disagreed and terminated his benefits, saying he could still work in certain jobs if given accommodations.
What the Court Decided
The court sided with the plan administrator and upheld the decision to cut off Graeber's benefits. The judge found that the administrator didn't abuse its authority in concluding that Graeber could perform some occupations with reasonable accommodations, and therefore didn't meet the plan's strict definition of "total disability."
Why This Matters for Workers
This case shows that courts give plan administrators significant leeway in determining disability benefits. Workers who are denied disability benefits may face an uphill battle challenging that decision in court, even if they believe they cannot work. The ruling emphasizes that disability plans can require workers to show they cannot perform *any* available work with accommodations—a high bar to meet.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.