Skip to main content

Bruce A. Mead v. Intermec Technologies Corporation Short Term Disability Plan for Employees of Norand Corporation

8th CircuitNovember 13, 2001No. 01-1066Cited 16 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Bowman, Heaney, Bye
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

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of Intermec, finding that Mead was ineligible for short-term disability benefits under the plan's terms, that his severance waiver barred his claims, that his action was time-barred under Iowa's statute of limitations, and that he was not entitled to plan information as a non-participant former employee.

What This Ruling Means

Based on the limited information provided, this case involved Bruce A. Mead and his dispute with a short-term disability plan offered by Intermec Technologies Corporation for employees of Norand Corporation. **What Happened:** Mead appears to have had a disagreement regarding his short-term disability benefits through his employer's plan. The specific details of his claim or what benefits he was seeking are not clear from the available information. **What the Court Decided:** The outcome of this case is not specified in the provided information, so it's unclear how the court ruled on Mead's dispute with the disability plan. **Why This Matters for Workers:** Short-term disability cases like this highlight the importance of understanding your employee benefits and the appeals process when claims are denied. Workers should carefully review their disability plan documents and know their rights when filing for benefits. If you believe your disability claim has been wrongfully denied, you may have legal options available. However, these cases can be complex and often involve detailed plan language and medical documentation requirements. *Note: This summary is based on very limited case information and should not be considered complete legal guidance.*

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.