Field v. Sheet Metal Workers' Nat'l Pension Fund

83 F.4th 59

David A. FIELD, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. SHEET METAL WORKERS' NATIONAL PENSION FUND, Defendant, Appellee.

No. 22-1824

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

October 3, 2023

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Indira Talwani, U.S. District Judge]

Hudson Ellis, with whom Eric Buchanan & Associates, PLLC, were on brief, for plaintiff, appellant.

Nicholas T. Christakos, with whom Peter E. Ball, Ryan M. Cunningham, Fitch Law Partners, LLP, and Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP, were on brief, for defendant, appellee.

Before Barron, Chief Judge, Lynch and Howard, Circuit Judges.

LYNCH, Circuit Judge.

David A. Field appeals from the decision of the Massachusetts U.S. District Court denying his motion for summary judgment and granting the renewed motion for summary judgment of the appellee, Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund ("the Fund"). Field v. Sheet Metal Workers' Nat'l Pension Fund, No. 1:20-CV-11939-IT, 2022 WL 4626883 (D. Mass. Sept. 30, 2022). Field brought suit for plan benefits pursuant to ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), arguing that the Fund wrongfully terminated his previously granted Disability Benefit. The District Court held that the Appeals Committee of the Board of Trustees of the Fund ("Appeals Committee") did not abuse its discretion and was not arbitrary or capricious in terminating his Disability Benefit payments based on the Committee's findings that Field had engaged in Disqualifying Employment in 2016 and also that he had not completed sufficient hours of Covered Employment to become eligible for this benefit in the first place. We need reach only the first of the Committee's findings because it is dispositive.

Field argues that the Appeals Committee acted arbitrarily and capriciously and abused its discretion in determining that he had engaged in Disqualifying Employment in 2016 on the grounds that, in his view, the Committee failed to meaningfully engage with the evidence he submitted.

We affirm the district court's entry of summary judgment for the Fund.

I.

A.

The Fund is a multiemployer pension plan falling under 29 U.S.C. § 1002(37)(A) administered by the Board of Trustees, which is a plan "fiduciary" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A). Participants in the Fund's Plan ("Plan") are eligible for benefits pursuant to the provisions of the Fund's Plan Document ("Plan Document"). Under § 1.13 of the Plan Document, an individual hired or rehired before July 1, 2001, who performs work covered by a collective bargaining agreement for a "Contributing Employer" can become eligible for Plan benefits as a "Covered Employee." Section 1.10 of the Plan Document defines a "Contributing Employer" as an industry employer who is party to a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the SMWIA¹, or any local union ("Local") chartered by it, that requires periodic contributions to the Fund and who participates in the Plan in accordance with Article 2 of the Plan Document. Contributing Employers report hours of service and contribute payments to the Fund for "Covered Employment," meaning "work performed by an Employee on behalf of one or more Contributing Employers in his capacity as a Covered Employee" under § 1.14 of the Plan Document. The Fund credits these employer-reported hours to its Covered Employee participants to determine whether they are eligible for pension benefits under the Plan.

Field became a member of SMART Local Union 17 in Dorchester, Massachusetts, a Participating Local, in 1981 and remains a retired member. As a member of a Participating Local, he is a Plan Participant eligible for benefits should he meet the Plan Document's requirements. Under § 16.03 of the Plan Document, to become eligible for a Disability Benefit -- formerly known as a Disability Pension² -- a Plan Participant must accumulate at least ten years of "Pension Credit" -- meaning Covered Employment under the Plan either before or after their employer became a Contributing Employer -- among other requirements.

If at any time a Disability Benefit recipient performs any "Disqualifying Employment" -- defined under § 8.06(d)(1) of the Plan Document as "(A) employment with any Contributing Employer; (B) employment with any employer in the same or related business as any Contributing Employer; (C) self-employment in the same or related business as a Contributing Employer; (D) employment or self-employment in any business which is under the jurisdiction of the Union; or (E) employment in the Sheet Metal Industry that is not covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the Union and the employer" -- § 16.06(b)(3) of the Plan Document dictates that their Disability Benefit will be terminated.

Section 8.02 of the Plan Document requires Plan participants to "furnish the Fund Office with any information or proof requested by it and reasonably required to administer the Plan." If the claim or information provided is "materially inaccurate," or the information provided is incomplete, "benefits may be denied, suspended, or discontinued." Id. The Fund also reserves "the right to recover any benefit payments made in reliance on any materially inaccurate or incomplete statement, information or proof." Id.

Section 8.03 of the Fund's Plan Document gives the Trustees "the sole and absolute power, authority and discretion to determine . . . the application and interpretation of the Plan Document" and "entitlement to or amount of a pension." Pursuant to § 8.03(b) of the Plan Document, the Trustees have delegated this power to an Appeals Committee. Under § 8.04 of the Plan Document, the Appeals Committee's decision on matters within the range of this delegated authority is "final and binding."

B.

In May 1993, Field applied for a Disability Pension, asserting he was disabled due to electrocution, herniated discs, and Crohn's disease and thus unable to work in the sheet metal industry. In a July 29, 1993, letter, the Fund informed Field that he was ineligible to receive a Disability Pension due to insufficient Pension Credit. Field appealed this denial on September 8, 1993, arguing that the Fund should credit him additional hours of Covered Employment and stating that the last time he was and would "ever be gainfully employed, due to [his] medical and physical condition" was January 17, 1991, "due to a serious electrocution suffered at the JFK Federal Building." In a November 17, 1993, letter, the Fund denied Field's appeal because he was still ineligible due to insufficient Pension Credit. Field's father, Bud Field, owner of union contractor Field Fabrication Corporation, then provided several letters attesting that Field had worked additional hours at his company in 1982, 1987, 1990, and 1991 that had not been included or credited by the Fund in his initial disability application and paid corresponding pension contributions. Field reapplied for a Disability Pension on January 31, 1995. The Fund approved his application for a Disability Pension in February 1995. The Fund repeatedly notified Field over the following years that if he "return[ed] to any work in Disqualifying Employment (paid or unpaid) [his disability] benefit w[ould] be immediately terminated."

C.

In a July 11, 2019, letter, the Fund informed Field that his Disability Benefit had been terminated as of August 1, 2008, and he was required to reimburse the Plan for payments he had received from the Fund since that date, because the Fund had information that he had engaged in Disqualifying Employment. The Fund wrote that Field held a Home Improvement Contractor license in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and owned David Field Construction, a company "advertised as a general contractor." It had also "verified that [Field] w[as] responsible for" four construction projects on August 13, 2008; May 14, 2010; February 19, 2016; and April 20, 2016. The Fund "determined that the work [he] performed me[t] the Plan's definition of work in both the Sheet Metal Industry and Disqualifying Employment."

The letter informed Field that he had the right to appeal this decision to the Appeals Committee within 180 days of its receipt and that "the Appeals Committee has full discretion to interpret the Plan, and its decision is final and binding." The letter also stated, "[i]t is your obligation in any appeal to provide the Appeals Committee with any and all evidence, or other information, supporting your position" and "[r]efusing or failing to provide any necessary information can result in the denial of benefits."

Field appealed to the Appeals Committee on July 15, 2019, arguing as to the Disqualifying Employment in 2008 and 2010 that he was not responsible because these projects had been performed by a different person. As to the Disqualifying Employment in 2016, he asserted that the two projects were "NEVER PERFORMED AND 1OR [sic] SUPERVISED BY ME." He stated that he had contacted Boston Inspectional Services and was informed that a building permit had been issued under his Construction Supervisor and Home Improvement licenses and that his "LICENSED [sic] WAS USED BY JUA [sic] P QUISHPILEMA OF 353 PLEASANT STREET, BROCKTON, MA 02301 PHONE # 508-588-5397 WHO PERFORMED THE WORK IN THE ABOVE 2 ISSUED PERMITS." He also asserted that he had "RECEIVED NO INCOME AND/OR BENEFIT" from Quishpilema's use of his license number and that he had "INFORMED THE CITY OF BOSTON TO BLOCK ANY PERMITS UNDER [his] LICENSE NUMBER AND OR NAME TO BE ISSUED [with]OUT [him] BEING THERE IN PERSON," as well as "INSTRUCTED MR. J. QUISHPILEMA TO NEVER AGAIN USE [his] INFORMATION." In addition, he stated he had not even been present in Massachusetts when the 2016 projects were performed because he had been in Florida recuperating from a surgery on his right hand for carpal tunnel syndrome. He acknowledged that he had continued to maintain his Massachusetts Construction Supervisor, Home Improvement Contractor, and Master Sheet Metal...