We use cookies to improve security, personalize the user experience,
enhance our marketing activities (including cooperating with our marketing partners) and for other
business use.
Click "here" to read our Cookie Policy.
By clicking "Accept" you agree to the use of cookies. Read less
The Atwood Doctrine: Key Insights into ERISA Summary Plan Descriptions
Definition & Meaning
The Atwood Doctrine is a legal principle that addresses conflicts between an Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plan and its summary plan description. According to this doctrine, if there is a disagreement about the circumstances under which benefits may be denied, the summary plan description takes precedence. This principle was established in the case of Atwood v. Newmont Gold Co., where the court ruled that ERISA mandates that the summary plan description must clearly outline the conditions that could lead to disqualification or denial of benefits. If the summary plan description does not meet this requirement and significantly differs from the actual plan, it is considered the controlling document.
Table of content
Legal Use & context
The Atwood Doctrine is primarily used in the context of employee benefits law, specifically concerning ERISA plans. It is essential for employees to understand their rights and the terms of their benefits. This doctrine can be relevant in situations where an employee believes their benefits have been unfairly denied. Users can manage their claims or appeals using legal templates provided by services like US Legal Forms, which are drafted by licensed attorneys.
Key legal elements
Real-world examples
Here are a couple of examples of abatement:
Example 1: An employee receives a summary plan description that states benefits will be denied if the employee is not actively participating in the plan. However, the actual ERISA plan includes additional criteria for eligibility that are not mentioned in the summary. If the employee is denied benefits based on the unmentioned criteria, the summary plan description would control, and the employee may have grounds for an appeal.
Example 2: (hypothetical example) An employee is informed that they are ineligible for certain benefits due to a lack of documentation. However, the summary plan description does not specify this requirement. In this case, the employee could argue that the summary plan description should govern the situation.
Relevant laws & statutes
The primary statute relevant to the Atwood Doctrine is the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), specifically 29 U.S.C.S. § 1022(b), which outlines the requirements for summary plan descriptions. Additionally, the case law established by Atwood v. Newmont Gold Co. serves as a significant reference point.
Comparison with related terms
Term
Definition
Key Difference
ERISA Plan
A formal employee benefit plan governed by ERISA.
ERISA plans are the actual documents outlining benefits, while the Atwood Doctrine pertains to conflicts with summary descriptions.
Summary Plan Description
A document that summarizes the key features of an ERISA plan.
The Atwood Doctrine states that this document can override the formal plan in cases of conflict.
Common misunderstandings
What to do if this term applies to you
If you believe your benefits have been denied based on conflicting information in your summary plan description, you should:
Review both the ERISA plan and the summary plan description carefully.
Gather any relevant documentation that supports your case.
Consider filing an appeal if you find discrepancies between the two documents.
Explore US Legal Forms for templates that can assist in drafting your appeal or claim.
If the situation is complex, seek assistance from a qualified attorney.
Find the legal form that fits your case
Browse our library of 85,000+ state-specific legal templates.