Nicolas v. MCI Health and Welfare Plan No. 501 et al
2:2005cv00442 |
September 16, 2005 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas |
Marshall Office |
T. John Ward |
Labor: E.R.I.S.A. |
29 U.S.C. ยง 1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
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, ) |
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, ) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.