Nicolas v. MCI Health and Welfare Plan No. 501 et al
Case Number: 2:2005cv00442
Filed: September 16, 2005
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Office: Marshall Office
Presiding Judge: T. John Ward
Nature of Suit: Labor: E.R.I.S.A.
Cause of Action: 29 U.S.C. ยง 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
February 18, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 74 MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER granting in part # 67 application for attorney fees and costs as set forth herein. Signed by Judge T. John Ward on 2/18/09. (ehs, )
September 29, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 67 MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER - The court finds that the Plan Administrator abused its discretion to deny benefits by basing its decisions on findings that ignored objective medical evidence in the record. The court, therefore GRANTS the relief sought by Nicolas and REVERSES the Plan Administrators decision to deny benefits. Nicolas is entitled past due benefits in accordance with the 2004 SPD since July 2003. The benefit calculation, interest calculation, and any application for attorneys fees, or the parties agreement regarding same, should be submitted within 20 days of this order. Signed by Judge T. John Ward on 9/29/08. (ehs, )
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Texas Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Nicolas v. MCI Health and Welfare Plan No. 501 et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?