Moukawsher & Walsh LLC

2011-01-18T13:41:00.001-08:00

Disclaimer

2011-01-18T13:37:00.001-08:00

This website is intended only to provide very general information about Moukawsher and Walsh, LLC, its practice areas and attorneys. The information contained in this website should not be taken as legal advice or construed as any form of legal representation. Visitors to this site should not take any action or rely upon any information contained in this site without first seeking advice of legal counsel. Any transmission or receipt of information contained on this website is not intended to and does not create an attorney-client relationship between visitors and the firm. Additionally, sending e-mail to any of the attorneys at the firm through the use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.

If you are not currently represented by this firm, any communication sent by you over the internet may not be treated as confidential or privileged information. Therefore, please refrain from sending any confidential documents or information without calling our firm and speaking with one of our attorneys directly.

If you would like additional information about our firm, our attorneys, our practice area or any other questions, please contact us directly at (860) 445-1809.

Nothing in this website is a promise or guarantee about the outcome of any case. We make no promises or guarantees. Cases are decided on their own facts and we cannot imply that our previous success will result in us winning your case.

Tedesco v. Bank of America Lawsuit Information

2011-01-18T13:15:00.000-08:00

Court Grants Final Approval on June 2, 2011

CIGNA Lawsuit Information

2011-01-18T13:13:00.000-08:00

Richards v. Fleet Boston

2011-01-18T13:11:00.000-08:00

Richards v. FleetBoston Financial Corporation
3:04cv1638 (JCH)
April 8, 2009

Court ruling suggests further patience needed from Class

On April 7, 2009, the District Court denied the Class's requests for enforcement and bonds stemming from the settlement delays. The Court believes that the IRS process holding up the settlement is long by its own nature, and that the Class should wait a few more months before it can claim undue delays.

We will be monitoring progress over the next few months and looking for any means to expedite matters.

For the most current information about this settlement go to: www.legacyfleetplanresolution.com

Arivella v. Lucent

2011-01-18T13:09:00.000-08:00

Life Benefits

2011-01-18T12:36:00.001-08:00

Wrongful denial of benefits claims cover a broad range of problems ranging from clerical errors to misreading of plan documents to outright refusal to pay a benefit you know is due. We file both administrative claims and lawsuits against insurance companies that fail to pay life insurance benefits to beneficiaries. Administrative claims, however, are not public information and we cannot disclose them here. Therefore the following is an example from a recent administrative claim:

- Your spouse's employer offers its employees various benefits - including life insurance. The Company decides to cut the amount of coverage in half (from $100,000 per employee to $50,000). However, the Company never tells you or your spouse about this. Your spouse continues to participate in the life insurance program, not knowing the coverage is substantially less than you and your spouse thought was needed to support your family if your spouse passed away. Unfortunately, your spouse passes away without learning that the benefits were cut or after learning of it only when it was too late to get replacement coverage. Your family seeks to collect the life insurance from the company, but the company, citing the reduction in coverage, refuses to pay the full amount. Under federal law your employer has a duty to promptly and directly inform your spouse that his benefits were cut.

Under most circumstances, your employer or its designee can be held liable for the money you should have received plus your attorney's fees, interest, and costs.

Representative Cases

The following is a list of lawsuits handled by our firm against life insurance companies for failure to pay benefits:

· Barletto v. UTC, plaintiff a beneficiary of her son’s life insurance benefits sued United Technologies for wrongfully denying payment claiming decedent’s death was not an accident.

· Reynolds v. MetLife, plaintiff a beneficiary of her husband’s life insurance benefits sued her employer Xerox Corporation, the Xerox Corporation Plan, the claims administrator Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and third party agent Hewitt Associates for wrongfully denying payment, multiple breaches of fiduciary duty and promissory estoppel for representing that the decedent was covered by the plan and only notifying the plaintiff after his death that he was not covered.

· Leyda v. AlliedSignal, plaintiff claimed life insurance benefits on her husband’s life based upon breach of ERISA summary plan description rule. Courtside trial. Judgment for plaintiff. The decision was affirmed by the court of appeals.

Generally, lawsuits take from 2 to 5 years to complete. While usually a settlement can be reached, sometimes trials are required. While we cannot assure positive results, we have a proven track record of success. Further, our lawyers and staff will be with you at every step to help you through the process, answer questions and address concerns.

Nothing in this website is a promise or guarantee about the outcome of any case. We make no promises or guarantees. Cases are decided on their own facts and we cannot imply that our previous success will result in us winning your case.

Health Benefits

2011-01-18T12:35:00.000-08:00

If an HMO denies coverage to a participant in an ERISA qualified plan, the HMO may have violated ERISA. Denial of coverage claims, malpractice claims, and discrimination claims can be brought in the federal courts. Like other areas of our practice, we expect this will be an area where much new law will be made trying to address growing evidence of wrongdoing by the insurance industry.

Representative Cases

We file administrative claims and lawsuits on behalf of both patients and providers (doctors or hospitals). We have successfully resolved a number of administrative claims before litigation. Administrative claims, however, are not public record and we cannot disclose them here. The following is a list of our recent lawsuits against health insurance companies for failure to provide insurance coverage:

· Kramer v. Oxford, plaintiff sued Oxford Health Plans for health insurance coverage for rehabilitation. The parties settled out of court.

Disability Benefits

2011-01-18T12:34:00.001-08:00

Have you been denied long term disability benefits even though your doctor says you are disabled and does not think you can work? You may have been wrongfully denied benefits under the terms of your long term disability policy. Under most circumstances, the long term disability plan administrator can be held liable for the money you should have received plus your attorney's fees, interest, and costs.

Representative Cases

We file administrative claims and lawsuits against long term disability insurance companies for our clients. We have successfully resolved a number of long term disability administrative claims before litigation. Administrative claims, however, are not public record and we cannot disclose them here. The following is a list of our recent court victories against long term disability plan administrators:

· Soucy v. Unum, a senior bank executive with NewAlliance Bank won a five-year legal battle for the long term disability benefits Unum denied her after a violent motor vehicle accident left her with a broken back and unable to return to work.

· Bregman v. Hartford Life, 20-year Perkin Elmer employee found totally disabled by his combination of serious physical conditions; awarded long term disability benefits under the plan terms against Hartford Life

· Mikrut v. Unum, pediatric nurse seriously injured in 1999 car accident and disabled according to the Social Security Administration awarded long term disability benefits against Unum because the record showed its decision to terminate her benefits was influenced by a conflict of interest.

· Towner v. CIGNA, 35-year Pfizer analytical pharmaceutical report writer suffering from a life-long degenerative vision problem affecting his work performance awarded long term disability benefits against CIGNA

· Trella v. CIGNA, former Pratt & Whitney engineer whose reoccurring chronic headaches caused him unceasing, disabling pain sued CIGNA for denying him long term disability benefits. The parties settled out of court.

Severance Benefits

2011-01-18T12:33:00.001-08:00

Breaches of Fiduciary Duty

Every employee benefits plan has a plan administrator, acting as a fiduciary over the plan and its participants. As a fiduciary, the plan administrator must perform his duties under the plan, “solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries … with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent man acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims.” Breaches of fiduciary duty can include failure to properly notice plan participants of changes in benefits; misrepresentations to plan participants about benefits; failure to provide plan documents to plan participants; failure to properly fund a plan; failure to manage plan funds; and more.

Our firm handles many types of severance benefit administrative claims and lawsuits. We also review severance agreements. If the following fact pattern sounds familiar, you may have a claim:

You retired from your Company on December 31, 2010. When you retired the company human resources personnel gave you the standard retirement information. They did not mention to you that the company was considering a plan to improve its retirement benefits or offer a "golden handshake."

After you retire, a former co-worker tells you the company increased retirement benefits after you retired and had you delayed your retirement you could have received those benefits. You are angry, because you would have stayed at the company if you knew that postponing your retirement would have meant getting the increased benefits.

ERISA requires companies that offer pension plans, health plans and other benefit programs to be truthful, accurate and complete when informing employees about their options and benefits. Under most circumstances, this includes disclosing to retiring employees the company's serious consideration of any benefits increase, golden handshake or similar separation incentive. Companies may not discriminate among employees when disclosing retirement information.

Our lawyers and staff work with clients to determine whether their employers wrongly withheld benefits information. If information was wrongfully withheld, we establish a plan to recover what our clients worked hard to earn. While every case is different, here are some thoughts to consider:

- If your company increased benefits after you retired, how close to your retirement date were the benefits increased? The closer your retirement date to the benefits increase, the more likely the increase was under serious consideration at the time you retired.

- How big is your company? Companies with thousands of employees do not make decisions over night. Generally, the larger the company, the longer the period of time a plan will be under serious consideration.

- Has your company PREVIOUSLY offered a retirement incentive or other benefit increase? History sometime repeats itself and if your company has previously issued retirement incentives, it may do so again in the future.

- Prior to retiring, did you hear rumors about a benefit increase or golden handshake? Rumors in the workplace are usually a good sign that something is in the works.

- Is your company "downsizing"? Retirement incentives are often employed in downsizing.

If your company did withhold incentives due to you under a retirement plan, our work enforcing your rights is a three-step process: (1) we make a Certified Demand with the company's human resources department articulating the basis under federal law why you are entitled to inclusion in the incentive; (2) if your demand is rejected, we make a Certified Administrative Appeal; and (3) if your appeal is rejected we file a lawsuit under ERISA.

Representative Cases

We have successfully resolved a number of benefit claims before litigation. Administrative claims, however, are not public record and we cannot disclose them here. The following is a list of our recent court victories in severance cases:

· Broga v. Northeast Utilities, after an eight-year legal battle and a two-week trial a court entered a multi-million judgment for benefits against Northeast Utilities for 30 retirees. (INSERT LINK TO DECISION 315 F. Supp. 2d 212 (D.Conn. 2004).)

· Caputo v. Pfizer, a case involving alleged ERISA disclosure violations. The plaintiffs' successful appeal in this case resulted in an important Second Circuit ruling on the ERISA statute of limitations and the so-called "serious consideration" test. In the decision, the Court of Appeals rejected the views of the majority of other circuits and, at the plaintiffs' urging, took an expansive view of the statute of limitations and reinforced the Court's prior rejection of the "serious consideration" test.

· Hudson v. General Dynamics, a case involving 89 plaintiffs. It was the nation's first reported recovery by plaintiffs who claimed they were misled concerning pending retirement plan changes prior to the onset of "serious consideration."

· Bins v. Exxon, first case in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized a breach of fiduciary duty claim similar to the one at issue in Mullins. The decisions in the case were reported in media across the country; the en banc argument was broadcast on C-SPAN. During 2001, the Bins case was among the topics at ERISA litigation conferences, including the American Bar Association's June 2001 “ERISA Basics” conference.

· Adamczyk v. Lever Bros., claim of breach of ERISA fiduciary duty related to alleged misrepresentations involving severance package. Resolved by agreement on behalf of all plaintiffs. The case resulted in the first published opinions on several important questions related to this species of breach of fiduciary duty claim in the Illinois district courts and the Seventh Circuit generally. Settled following multiple rulings for plaintiffs.

· Mullins v. Pfizer, the Second Circuit in this ERISA disclosure duty case overturned a district court decision, becoming one of the first courts in the nation to recognize that employer/fiduciaries can be held liable for failing to disclose information in response to questions about benefit enhancements considered but not yet adopted.

Pension Benefits

2011-01-18T12:11:00.001-08:00

Wrongful Denial of Benefits Due

Wrongful denial of benefits claims cover a broad range of problems ranging from clerical errors to misreading of plan documents to outright refusal to pay a benefit you know is due. Under most circumstances, your employer or its designee can be held liable for the money you should have received plus your attorney's fees, interest, and costs.

Breaches of Fiduciary Duty

Benefit Related Discrimination

Your company cannot modify your employment in a manner which would interfere with your obtaining a benefit owed to you. Typically, this type of case arises where your company wrongfully terminates your employment to keep you from obtaining a benefit incentive. However, interference with benefits may include where your company wrongfully transfers you from a department slated to receive an incentive to prevent you from receiving the incentive.

Fraud, Theft, and Mismanagement of Funds

Your company hires an outside investment firm to act as trustee of the assets of the 401(k) plan in which you and your co-workers invest part of your weekly salary. The company neglects to monitor how the trustee is investing the money to be sure it is invested legally and prudently. As a consequence the plan makes significantly less money than it should or -- worse yet, the trustee steals the money in the plan!

Companies that hire other companies to manage their pension assets owe a duty to employees to make sure the money is safe and well invested. While the trustee is responsible for his conduct, the trustee is not the only one responsible. Therefore, if the trustee is broke or uninsured, the company which hired him can be held responsible for his bad management or theft.

Representative Cases

We file administrative claims and lawsuits against pension plan administrators for our clients. We have successfully resolved a number of benefit claims before litigation. Administrative claims, however, are not public record and we cannot disclose them here. The following is a list of our representative victories in pension plan cases:

· Tedesco v. Bank of America, a 5,000 member class action alleging ERISA disclosure and fiduciary violations concerning a pension plan in the District of Connecticut. Settled for $21 million.

· Bulgaro v. Ivy Asset Management, plaintiffs - trustees of the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund - sue the manager of the plan’s assets Ivy Asset Management for losses associated with Ivy’s breaches of fiduciary duty. The parties settled.

· Amara v. CIGNA, a 27,000 member class action alleging ERISA disclosure and accrual violations. Judgment for the class worth approximately $80 million affirmed by the Second Circuit. Argued and submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court on November 30, 2010.

· Richards v. FleetBoston, a 26,000 member class action alleging ERISA pension disclosure violations in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Settled for $85 million.

· Wasley Products, et al. v. Bulakties, et al., class members sue 401(k) plan trustees and third party agents for plan mismanagement and theft. Settled.

· Parry v. SBC, plaintiffs in this case alleged the defendants were shortchanging their pensions by misinterpreting plan documents. It resulted in a summary judgment worth over $3 million in benefits in favor of Cingular workers.

· Mathews v. Chevron Corp., reversed a strong trend in the Ninth Circuit of narrow views of equitable remedies in ERISA cases.

· Briere v. Emergi-Lite, recovered millions in stolen 401(k) benefits for laid off employees. Cover story, “Broken Dreams,” Money magazine.

Bernar Espanol, et. al. v. Avis Budget

2010-01-14T21:36:00.000-08:00

Inc. Case No. 8:10-cv-944T30

Case Synopsis: In general, the Plaintiff, Bernar Espanol, and all others who are similar and consent to their inclusion in the case allege:

that they worked more than 40 hours a week;
that they were not paid overtime for work performed after 40 hours in a week;
were employed under the title “shift manager”
worked for either Avis or Budget at one of their larger airport locations; and
were misclassified as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Why are they claiming misclassification and overtime? In general, because their duties were like that of an hourly paid employee, for example,

Mainly cleaning, renting or moving cars;
Lacking the ability to hire, fire, train or generally perform their jobs without being constantly supervised; and
Lacking managerial discretion.

Case Status:

On October 18, 2011, the Court conditionally certified their class and will permit Plaintiffs to send out Notices informing potential members of their rights, and that they may be able to join the case by “opting” in through the completion of an opt-in form.

Relevant Documents:

Information about opting into the lawsuit, factual witnesses, information about the case in general or for any other information you seek about the case should be directed to:

Thomas G. Moukawsher
888-489-9904