In an ERISA action challenging defendant pension fund's denial of disability benefits, judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the fund's trustees did not abuse their discretion when they determined the date of plaintiff's disability; 2) 29 U.S.C. section 1054(g) did not apply to "employee welfare benefit plans" such as that of defendant; and 3) the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) applied by the trustees was a separate interest QDRO, and plaintiff thus could not share in any of the benefits allocated to his ex-wife.
Argued and Submitted September 14, 2009
Filed December 1, 2009
Opinion by Judge Trott
Barry G. Collins, Asher, Gittler, Greenfield & D'Alba, Ltd., Chicago, IL