Suzanne Gifford, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Michael Gifford v. Operating Engineers 139 Health Benefit Fund

Recognizing that wrongfully denying benefits can have disastrous consequences for claimants, Congress enacted the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which was intended to make it easier for claimants to receive benefits. Inverting that goal, courts have since created procedural roadblocks that make it significantly harder for claimants to recover. Those roadblocks are despite the fact that Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) provides that the FRCP “govern the procedure in all civil actions . . . except as stated in Rule 81.” Rule 81 does not even mention ERISA. There is also no statute that exempts ERISA from the FRCP. And yet, lower courts have invented rules that preclude ERISA claimants from using even basic discovery that is available to other litigants. And lower courts’ ad hoc approach to limiting discovery has led to Circuit splits and confusion. Moreover, some Circuits recognize that a plan administrator’s fiduciary duties require the administrator to actually act as a fiduciary. Other Circuits purport to hold administrators to a fiduciary duty standard, but effectually rubber-stamp any decision that an administrator makes. In this case, the court of appeals joined the latter side of that split, leaving Petitioner with crushing medical debt after her husband tragically passed away. The questions presented are: 1. Whether courts may effectively preclude ERISA plaintiffs from engaging in any discovery.