- 12 -
of the participant's accrued benefit. The Plan makes no attempt
to distinguish among the various "total disabilities", even
though the types and severity of such injuries can vary greatly.
Thus, the Plan fails to compute the amount of the disability
payments with reference to the nature of the injury as required
by section 105(c)(2).
Petitioners argue that Mr. Hall had lost the use of his
right foot prior to the distribution from the Plan in 1988, and
that the Plan administrators were aware of his loss and made the
distribution to Mr. Hall because of it. However, the actual
disability is irrelevant to a determination of whether a plan
computes the amount of disability benefits with reference to the
nature of the injury. Rather, "the instrument or agreement under
which the amounts are paid must itself provide specificity as to
the permanent loss or injury suffered and the corresponding
amount of payments to be provided." Rosen v. United States,
supra at 509 (emphasis added).4
4On brief, as support for their claim that the payment was
computed with reference to the nature of the injury, petitioners
refer to a document entitled "Informal Action and Consent in
Writing by Board of Directors", dated Jan. 10, 1988, wherein the
board of directors of Hadd-Too determined that Mr. Hall had
presented evidence of a total disability as required under the
Plan and stated that "in evaluating the degree and severity of
the disability of James F. Hall, Jr., it is hereby determined
that the total value of James F. Hall, Jr.'s accrued benefits in
the Plan shall be paid as a disability payment from the Plan".
The document was not actually prepared until March 1989, well
over 1 year after its purported execution and long after the
distribution to Mr. Hall. In any event, in light of our holding
that the Plan itself must calculate the benefits with reference
to the nature of the injury, we find the document to be
irrelevant.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011