Plaintiff Jebian prevailed on appeal. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the ERISA plan administrator and remanded, holding that the plan administrator's decision should be reviewed de novo rather than under the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard because the administrator failed to meet statutory and regulatory deadlines for responding to the benefits appeal, resulting in an automatic deemed denial.
What Happened
Donald Jebian, a Hewlett-Packard employee, filed a lawsuit against his company's employee benefits plan seeking income protection benefits under ERISA (a federal law that governs workplace benefit plans). Jebian believed he was entitled to certain benefits from HP's income protection plan but was apparently denied or had issues accessing those benefits.
What the Court Decided
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed Jebian's case in November 2003. The court ruled against Jebian, meaning he did not receive the benefits he was seeking. No damages were awarded in this case.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case highlights the challenges employees can face when trying to claim benefits from their employer's ERISA plans. ERISA cases can be difficult to win because these federal benefit plans have specific rules and procedures that must be followed exactly. When workers believe they're entitled to disability, income protection, or other ERISA benefits, they should carefully review their plan documents and consider getting help from someone familiar with ERISA law, as these cases involve complex federal regulations that can be hard to navigate alone.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Other orders and opinions in Donald Jebian v. Hewlett-Packard Company Employee Benefits Organization Income Protection Plan Erisa Plan from the same court.
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.