Lawrence L. and Kathleen J. Kelter - Page 13

                                                 - 13 -                                                   

            benefits could be paid pursuant to section 9.3.  The term “total                              
            and permanent disability” is undefined in the Plan, and, contrary                             
            to petitioner’s testimony as to what the Committee thought that                               
            term meant, we believe that the Committee implemented the Plan by                             
            allowing petitioner disability benefits on a showing that he was                              
            disabled from the practice of dentistry without a showing that he                             
            was disabled from any employment.  We find that the Plan did not                              
            vary the amount of benefit according to the type and severity of                              
            the injury suffered by the employee, and that the Plan’s                                      
            requirement of total and permanent disability was satisfied on a                              
            showing of disability to practice dentistry.  Based on those                                  
            findings, the Plan failed to meet the requirements of section                                 
            105(c) that payments be computed with reference to the nature of                              
            the injury.  This case is similar to both Beisler v.                                          
            Commissioner, 814 F.2d 1304 (9th Cir. 1987), and Hines v.                                     
            Commissioner, 72 T.C. 715 (1979), and we are governed by the                                  
            results therein.                                                                              
                  Petitioners argue that both this Court, in the Hines case,                              
            and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in the Beisler                                
            case, misconstrued section 105(c) in imposing a requirement that                              
            benefits vary in accordance with the nature of the injury.  In                                
            petitioners’ view, it suffices that benefits are paid on account                              
            of injury or sickness and without regard to the period the                                    
            employee is absent from work.  Petitioners claim:  “There is no                               





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011