Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
No. 05-1511
ROLAND E. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
IRONWORKERS LOCAL 16 PENSION FUND; BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE IRONWORKERS LOCAL 16 TRUST
FUNDS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-041417-AMD)
Argued:
Decided:
US,
Jude
for
CARY
PER CURIAM:
Appellant, Roland Williams, began working for employers that
contributed to appellee, the Ironworkers Local 16 Pension Fund,
beginning in 1969.
J.A. 375.
Id. at
376.
In
1990,
Williams
made
request[]
to
the
Fund
for
Id. at
270. Several months later, the Fund informed Williams that he was
not vested because he had a permanent break in service as of
1981.
Id. at 272.
Id. at 277.
See
Id.
Id. at 293-96.
Id. at 298-302.
decision
denying
him
benefits
-2-
while
claiming
not
to
Id. at 301-02.
Williams appealed.
Id. at 305-08.
On
Id. at 310-14.
benefits
allegedly
due
him
under
the
terms
of
the
Id. at 12.
Id. at
Dameron v. Sinai
Hosp. of Baltimore, Inc., 815 F.2d 975, 981 (4th Cir. 1987).
-3-
See id.
of action does not accrue until a claim of benefits has been made
and formally denied.
fact of claim and denial, see id., and because the 1996 claim and
denial and the 2004 claim and denial were, in fact, distinct
events, a new cause of action accrued with the Funds denial of
benefits in 2004.
-4-
denial. Williams submitted one claim for benefits in 1996, and the
Fund considered the merits of Williams claim and formally denied
it. Williams submitted another claim for benefits in 2003, and the
Fund again considered the merits of Williams claim and formally
denied it.
effect that it had already decided the issue presented by the 2003
claim, see, e.g., id. at 298, 301, it proceeded to (re)consider the
merits of Williams later claim in the first instance and on
appeal, id. at 298-302, 310-314.
Williams 2003 claim for benefits, the Fund treated that claim as
a separate claim for benefits.
Id. at 314.
Because a worker
The Funds
argument focuses on the reason for the denial rather than on the
fact of claim and formal denial.
-5-
Funds reasons for denying benefits on the merits in 1996 and 2004
does not change the fact that the claim and formal denial of
benefits in 1996 comprised a separate event from the claim and
formal denial of benefits in 2004.
72.
For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the district
court is reversed.
REVERSED
-6-
and no federal court action was filed within the applicable statute
of limitations, the claimant should not be able to revive his right
to sue simply by filing another claim seeking the very benefits
that previously had been denied.
Under
-7-