Skip to main content

Olga Gorbacheva v. Abbott Laboratories Edp

9th CircuitDecember 10, 2019No. 18-15400
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unpublished
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment denying Gorbacheva's ERISA long-term disability benefits claim, but reversed the district court's award of attorneys' fees and remanded for recalculation to exclude fees incurred after Gorbacheva rejected the Plan's settlement offer.

What This Ruling Means

**Gorbacheva v. Abbott Laboratories: Disability Benefits Case** This case involved Olga Gorbacheva, an Abbott Laboratories employee who was denied long-term disability benefits under her employer's benefit plan. Gorbacheva sued Abbott, claiming she was entitled to these benefits and asking the court to order the company to pay them. The Court of Appeals made a split decision. The court sided with Abbott on the main issue, ruling that Gorbacheva was not entitled to the disability benefits she sought. However, the court found that Abbott had been awarded too much in attorney's fees. The court sent the case back to the lower court to recalculate these fees, specifically removing costs that Abbott incurred after offering Gorbacheva a settlement that she rejected. **What this means for workers:** This case highlights the challenges employees face when fighting denials of workplace disability benefits. Even when workers lose their main case, courts will still scrutinize whether employers are claiming excessive legal costs. Workers should know that employer-sponsored disability plans have strict requirements, and benefit denials are often upheld by courts. If facing a similar situation, employees should carefully consider settlement offers, as rejecting them could affect how much they might owe in legal fees if they lose.

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

Similar Rulings

Canteen
S.D.N.Y.Oct 2025
Remanded
Angela Standlee v. Abbott Laboratories
C.D. Cal.May 2025
Remanded
PELUSO
D. Me.May 2024
Defendant Win
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win

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.