Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Frank A. Briglia v. Horizon Healthcare Services

June 17, 2011

FRANK A. BRIGLIA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
HORIZON HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hillman, District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

This matter having come before the Court on the Court-ordered supplemental briefing on the issue of prejudgment interest, which was awarded to plaintiff in the Court's October 21, 2010 Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(1) Opinion; and

The Court having found, inter alia, that the defendant health fund improperly denied the payment of benefits to plaintiff in the amount of $670,539.58, and that plaintiff was entitled to prejudgment interest on this award; but

The Court having left the question of what interest rate to apply "for another day"; and

The Court having ordered the parties to submit briefing on the issue; and

The parties having complied; and

Plaintiff arguing that because ERISA is silent on the issue of prejudgment interest, and several courts have looked to state law for the applicable rate, this Court should apply New Jersey's Prompt Pay Act, which imposes a 12% interest rate; and

Plaintiff thus contending that he is entitled to $455,917.81 in prejudgment interest, which encompasses the time when the payments were due to plaintiff up until the Court's October 21, 2010 decision; and

In contrast, defendants arguing that the prejudgment interest rate should be calculated based on the statutory post-judgment interest rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1961, which is "equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield for the preceding calendar week"; and

Accordingly, defendants contending that plaintiff is only entitled to $10,258.15 in prejudgment interest; and

This Court recognizing that the Third Circuit has found that "prejudgment interest [is] available where the beneficiary had brought suit under ERISA to recover unpaid benefits," but that the Third Circuit has not "offer[ed] extensive guidance for deciding what rate of interest is appropriate in a given case," Holmes v. Pension Plan of Bethlehem Steel Corp., 213 F.3d 124, 131 (3d Cir. 2000) (citations omitted); however,

The Third Circuit in Holmes having affirmed the district court's rejection of the plaintiffs' request for a 12% interest rate*fn1 , and approved the application of the rate provided for in § 1961, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the plan did not act in bad faith, and in determining that the plaintiffs would be fully compensated by interest paid at the statutory post-judgment rate, Holmes, 213 F.3d at 133; and

The Third Circuit further finding in Holmes that if the plaintiffs were awarded "interest at a higher rate then they would have earned had they invested their benefits on their own behalf would go beyond making them whole," and

The Holmes court further noting that "'ERISA does no more than protect the benefits which are due to an employee under a plan,'" id. (quoting Bennett v. Conrail Matched ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.