November 20, 2023
The NFL's retirement benefit plan opposed a full Fifth Circuit review of a suit lodged by former running back Michael Cloud, arguing his petition does not identify any error in the panel's initial unanimous decision, making it impossible to meet the court's high standard for en banc hearing.
October 23, 2023
Former NFL running back Michael Cloud has requested a full Fifth Circuit review of his suit against the league's retirement benefit plan, after a circuit panel reversed a lower court decision awarding him benefits the league had denied him.
October 10, 2023
The NFL's retirement plan was not wrong in denying the top level of benefits to former running back Michael Cloud because he had not informed a Texas district court of his "changed circumstances" entitling him to a higher benefit, a Fifth Circuit panel has ruled in a decision that still scolded the league plan for its "devastating" and "disturbing" handling of ex-players' applications.
September 01, 2023
In September, federal appeals courts have set oral arguments on several important employee benefits disputes from workers claiming violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and a D.C. Circuit panel will be asked to determine whether Rite Aid violated labor law when changing union retirees' health benefits.
March 10, 2023
The National Football League's player retirement plan has said a district court was wrong to find it owed a former running back the highest level of disability payments, telling the Fifth Circuit that the player's appeal for benefits was two days late and the court should have deferred to plan officials' decision as well.
February 03, 2023
A former National Football League player urged the Fifth Circuit to keep in place a ruling finding the NFL's player retirement plan wrongly shorted him on benefits, saying the extent of his disabilities warranted higher payments.
November 14, 2022
The National Football League's player retirement plan urged the Fifth Circuit to overturn a former running back's win on his claims that the plan flouted federal benefits law when it shorted him on benefits payments, saying the decision sets unrealistic requirements for plans.