Williams v. Retirement Board of the Bert Bell-Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan & the NFL Player Supplemental Disability Plan
Williams v. Retirement Board of the Bert Bell-Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan & the NFL Player Supplemental Disability Plan
Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
1. We review the Board’s decision for abuse of discretion, because the Plan grants discretion to the Board. Jebian v. Hewlett-Packard Co. Employee Benefits Org. Income Prot. Plan, 310 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 2002). The Board’s decision must be upheld where, as here, substantial evidence in the record supports it. McKenzie v. Gen. Tel. Co. of Cal., 41 F.3d 1310, 1316-17 (9th Cir. 1994).
First, medical evidence supports the determination. Dr. Holmboe found, in 1983, that Plaintiff was able to engage in “supervisory employment.” Dr. Harrington opined in 1984 that Plaintiff was disabled only with respect to “work which involves any significant requirement for lifting, stooping, stretching, bending, prolonged
Second, Plaintiffs work history supports the Board’s determination. Plaintiff earned a salary, listed his profession as “Executive,” and worked for three employers, until resigning due to medical problems. Actual employment in sedentary positions demonstrates employability in such positions.
2. It follows that the district court also erred in awarding attorney’s fees and costs to Plaintiff.
REVERSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Concurring Opinion
concurring.
I concur for the reasons stated in the paragraph beginning: “First, medical evidence supports the determination.” I do not believe the court should rely on Mr. Williams’ employment history. The Board did not investigate the exact nature of his employment. The Plan therefore could not and did not ascertain either (1) whether Mr. Williams actually did substantial work (as opposed to being paid for occasional appearances or for lending his name to an organization); or (2) whether his employment fit within one of the exceptions contained in the Plan’s definition of “occupation or employment for remuneration or profit.”
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.