Skip to main content

Orzechowski v. Boeing Co. Non-Union Long-Term Disability Plan, Plan Number 625

9th CircuitMay 11, 2017No. 14-55919Cited 21 times
Plaintiff WinThe Boeing Company
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Kozinski, Bybee, Walter
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wrongful Termination

Outcome

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment in favor of defendants, holding that California Insurance Code § 10110.6 voided the discretionary authority clause in the ERISA plan and required de novo review of the benefits denial decision, remanding for reconsideration.

What This Ruling Means

**Boeing Employee Wins Disability Benefits Case** This case involved a Boeing employee, Orzechowski, who was denied long-term disability benefits under the company's employee benefit plan. When Boeing's insurance plan rejected his claim, Orzechowski sued, arguing the denial was wrong. The key issue was how much power the insurance company had to make decisions about benefit claims. Boeing's plan included language giving the insurer broad "discretionary authority" to decide whether someone qualified for benefits. This typically makes it very hard for employees to challenge denials in court, since judges usually have to defer to the insurance company's decision. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the employee. The court found that California state insurance law essentially cancels out these discretionary authority clauses, meaning judges can review benefit denials from scratch rather than simply rubber-stamping the insurance company's decision. **What this means for workers:** If you're a California employee whose disability benefits were wrongfully denied, courts may give your case a fresh, independent review rather than automatically siding with your employer's insurance company. This makes it easier to challenge unfair benefit denials and potentially win your case.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 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.