- 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