Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), a penalty may be imposed on a plan administrator that fails to comply with a request for ERISA-required information by a plan participant or beneficiary. Upon request, a plan administrator is required to provide the following to a participant or beneficiary of an ERISA plan:

The purpose of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) is to benefit the interest of employees and their beneficiaries in employee benefit plans.  ERISA governs the duties, both fiduciary and statutory, that the employer and insurer must follow. Section 502(a)(3) of ERISA permits employees denied benefits under

One of the important rules of claiming benefits under an ERISA plan is to follow the rules set forth by the plan, so long as the rules are compliant with ERISA.  Under ERISA, a plan administrator is permitted to require claimants to go through administrative appeals prior to filing a

Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), a person denied benefits under an employee benefit claim is permitted to challenge that denial in federal court. 29 U.S.C. § 1001; § 1132(a)(1)(B)). Importantly, based on the Plan, the Court reviewing the denial of benefits by an ERISA plan administration will apply a de novo standard of review or a review for an abuse of discretion. The importance of this distinction cannot be understated.

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) contains a “prohibited transactions” rule. This rule was created to prohibit transactions which provide an opportunity for abuse. ERISA contains a “prohibited transactions” rule. This rule was created to prohibit transactions which provide an opportunity for abuse. The prohibited transactions, outlined in 29

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) is a federal law governs most pension and health plans in the private sector that provide protection for individuals through these plans. ERISA requires plans to provide their participants with plan information including important information about plan funding and features, and

Litigation is expensive. Few people can afford the tens of thousands of dollars required to bring a lawsuit. Some lawyers in the field of retirement plan litigation will take cases on a contingency-fee basis.

Fees for plan services are paid out of the plan assets, yet rarely are the reasonableness of the fees monitored to ensure plan participants are being charged a reasonable amount.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that an ex-wife lacked standing to sue her former husband’s employer and benefits administrator under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).

Since 1971, Clark Skatoff PA has built its reputation on experience, professional ability, personal service and genuine dedication to providing innovative and creative approaches to legal issues of all complexities.  Our firm is focused on helping you. The Florida law firm’s managing attorney, Jeffrey H. Skatoff, is an award-winning civil