Skip to main content

William H. Burstein, M.D. v. Retirement Account Plan For Employees Of Allegheny Health Education And Research Foundation

3rd CircuitAugust 1, 2003No. 02-2666Cited 35 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

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 ContractFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

The Third Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claims for plan benefits under ERISA and breach of fiduciary duty, but affirmed dismissal of remaining counts. The court held that a summary plan description can support a claim for benefits even when it conflicts with the formal plan document.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened:** Dr. William Burstein and other employees sued their former employer, Allegheny Health Education and Research Foundation, over retirement benefits. The dispute centered on whether the employees were entitled to certain pension benefits based on what they were told in plan documents versus what the official retirement plan actually said. The employees claimed they relied on benefit summaries that promised more generous benefits than what the formal plan document provided. **What the Court Decided:** The federal appeals court ruled in favor of the employees on the main issues. The court said that when employers give workers summary descriptions of their benefits that differ from the official plan documents, employees can rely on those summaries to claim benefits. However, the court dismissed some of the other legal claims the employees had made. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This ruling protects employees who receive benefit information from their employers. If your employer gives you written materials describing your retirement or other benefits, you can generally trust that information, even if it's more generous than what's in the fine print of the official plan. Employers can't mislead workers with benefit summaries and then deny benefits based on technical plan language.

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

Similar Rulings

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
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Wright
10th CircuitAug 2001
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.