Galm v. Eaton Corporation - Northern District of Iowa
Galm v. Eaton Corporation - Northern District of Iowa
Galm v. Eaton Corporation - Northern District of Iowa
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
B. Application Of The Substantial Evidence Test ................. 25<br />
III. CONCLUSION ........................................ 30<br />
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND<br />
A. Procedural Background<br />
On August 2, 2004, plaintiff Janet M. <strong>Galm</strong> filed a petition in <strong>Iowa</strong> <strong>District</strong> Court<br />
In And For Clay County against <strong>Eaton</strong> <strong>Corporation</strong> (“<strong>Eaton</strong>”) under the civil enforcement<br />
provision <strong>of</strong> the Employee Retirement Income Security Act <strong>of</strong> 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C.<br />
§ 1132(a)(1)(B), seeking long-term disability benefits under an employee welfare benefit<br />
plan (“the Plan”) sponsored by her former employer, <strong>Eaton</strong>. On August 26, 2004,<br />
defendant <strong>Eaton</strong> removed this case to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), alleging<br />
jurisdiction based on ERISA’s express federal jurisdictional provision found in 28 U.S.C.<br />
§ 1332(e).<br />
In <strong>Galm</strong>’s petition, she alleges that <strong>Eaton</strong> denied her second-tier long-term<br />
disability benefits under the Plan, in violation <strong>of</strong> ERISA. In its answer, <strong>Eaton</strong> admits<br />
denying <strong>Galm</strong> second-tier long-term disability benefits, but alleges the denial <strong>of</strong> these<br />
benefits was reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious. Following the court’s granting<br />
plaintiff <strong>Galm</strong>’s request to conduct discovery, see <strong>Galm</strong> v. <strong>Eaton</strong> Corp., 360 F. Supp. 2d<br />
2