Schreibeis v. Retirement Plan , 216 F. App'x 177 ( 2007 )

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-7-2007
Schreibeis v. Retirement Plan
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-1160
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Schreibeis v. Retirement Plan" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1654.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1654
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________________________________
No. 06-1160
KATHYRN A. SCHREIBEIS,
Appellant,
v.
RETIREMENT PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF DUQUESNE
LIGHT COMPANY; ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE RETIREMENT
PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY; CONCENTRA
MEDICAL CENTER, L.L.C.
__________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 04-cv-00969)
District Judge: Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose
____________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 30, 2007
____________________________________
Before: BARRY and ROTH, Circuit Judges, and
DEBEVOISE*, Senior District Court Judge
(Opinion Filed: February 7, 2007)
____________________________________
*
Honorable Dickinson R. Debevoise, Senior District Court Judge for the District of New
Jersey, sitting by designation.
OPINION
____________________________________
Debevoise, Senior District Court Judge
Appellant, Kathyrn A. Schreibeis, filed an action in the District Court against
Appellee, Retirement Plan for Employees of Duquesne Light Company (the “Plan”),
seeking to recover disability retirement benefits allegedly due to her. The Plan denied
that she was entitled to these benefits, because she had not been found by a medical
examiner selected by the Plan Administrator to be totally and, presumably, permanently
disabled. Schreibeis and the Plan each moved for summary judgment.
The District Court denied the Plan’s motion in all respects relevant to this appeal.
The Court granted Schreibeis’s motion for summary judgment against the Plan except to
the extent she requested as a remedy an award of disability benefits in her favor. Instead,
having found that Schreibeis’s claim was decided without adequate notice and a
reasonable opportunity for a full and fair review as required by the Plan, the Court
remanded the case to the Plan Administrator for a full and fair review in accordance with
the Court’s Opinion, the Plan Document and ERISA.
Schreibeis filed an appeal of the District Court’s denial of her motion for summary
judgment to the extent she sought an award of disability retirement benefits. The Plan
moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that this Court lacks appellate jurisdiction.
This Court does not have jurisdiction over an appeal that challenges a district court order
denying a motion for summary judgment. Robinson v. Hartzell Propeller, Inc., 454 F.3d
2
163 (3d Cir. 2006). The exception to this general rule is not applicable, as this is not an
appeal of a remand for further administrative proceedings which involves an important
legal issue that would evade appellate review in the absence of an immediate appeal. See
Kreider Dairy Farms, Inc. v. Glickman, 190 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 1999).
The motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction will be granted. The
appeal will be dismissed and the case remanded to the District Court.
3