{"id":39,"date":"2015-02-10T00:33:01","date_gmt":"2015-02-10T00:33:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/erisa-experts.com\/blog\/?p=39"},"modified":"2016-03-17T14:59:04","modified_gmt":"2016-03-17T21:59:04","slug":"courts-continue-to-permit-expert-testimony-on-a-variety-of-erisa-issues","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/erisa-experts.com\/blog\/2015\/02\/10\/courts-continue-to-permit-expert-testimony-on-a-variety-of-erisa-issues\/","title":{"rendered":"Courts Continue to Permit Expert Testimony on a Variety of ERISA Issues"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Joseph A. Garofolo<\/a><\/p>\n

In Abbott, et al. v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, et al.<\/em>\u2014the 401(k) plan excessive fee lawsuit\u00a0in which a provisional settlement was recently reached\u2014expert testimony was almost certain to play a critical role had the case proceeded to trial.\u00a0 Just before the provisional settlement was reported, as a potential prelude\u00a0to\u00a0the clash between experts if the case had continued, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois ruled that it would permit a supplemental expert report of one of the plaintiffs\u2019 experts.\u00a0 In his supplemental report,\u00a0the\u00a0plaintiffs\u2019 expert opined that plan \u201cfiduciaries\u2019 attempts (or lack thereof) to explore alternative recordkeeping and administrative processes contributed to the excessive amount of fees assessed against Plan participants over the years.\u201d\u00a0 (Order dated December 14, 2014 at 1).<\/p>\n

As evidenced by the Abbott<\/em> litigation, expert testimony can take center stage in ERISA\u00a0cases all the way up to trial.\u00a0 But what is the basis for allowing such testimony and what issues have experts been permitted to opine upon in ERISA cases?<\/p>\n

To begin with, Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence focuses on the expert\u2019s qualifications, the reliability of the proffered testimony, and whether the testimony is helpful to the trier of fact.\u00a0 And Rule 704 declares that \u201c[a]n opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue.”<\/p>\n

In light of the guidance provided by Rules 702 and 704 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, it is not surprising that federal courts across the circuits have permitted expert testimony regarding a variety of ERISA issues.\u00a0 See,<\/em> e.g.<\/em>, Hans v. Tharaldson<\/em>, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151083, at *17 (D.N.D. Dec. 23, 2011) (expert \u201cmay testify about the duty to act prudently, the standard of care applicable to a fiduciary in this situation, how [defendant\u2019s] actions deviated from the applicable standard of care, and\/or why he believes [the] . . . analysis [of the other side\u2019s expert] is flawed\u201d); In re Iron Workers Local 25 Pension Fund<\/em>, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34505, *15-*16 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2011); Stinker Stores, Inc. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. & Order Co.<\/em>, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31643, at *11-*12 (D. Idaho Mar. 31, 2010) (expert opinions would be \u201chelpful to the jury in understanding relevant issues of employee benefit administration and ERISA, and the application of relevant . . . policy language to the day-to-day practice of employee benefits administration\u201d); In re Reliant Energy ERISA Litig.<\/em>, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48034, at *8 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2005) (expert \u201copinions on specific issues, such as whether Defendants were ERISA fiduciaries for certain relevant purposes\u201d could be helpful to the court); Engers v. AT&T (In re Engers)<\/em>, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41693, at *3, *10 (D.N.J. Aug. 10, 2005); Stuart Park Assocs. Ltd. Partnership v. Ameritech Pension Trust<\/em>, 51 F.3d 1319, 1327 (7th Cir. 1995).<\/p>\n

In what might actually be an understatement, one court\u00a0explained that the\u00a0\u201cinteractions of ERISA, the [Internal Revenue Code], and their accompanying regulations were \u2018sufficiently esoteric\u2019 to the uninitiated factfinder to justify expert witness opinion testimony under Rule 702.\u201d\u00a0 Proujansky v. Blau<\/em>, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 786, at *23 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2000).<\/p>\n

Moreover, since most ERISA cases are bench trials, in the author’s experience, the admissibility of expert testimony may remain unresolved at trial because a judge may be inclined to delay a ruling on challenged expert testimony until after trial.<\/p>\n

Thus,\u00a0it is likely that experts will continue to assume an important role in ERISA litigation, especially in cases involving complex issues or alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Joseph A. Garofolo In Abbott, et al. v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, et al.\u2014the 401(k) plan excessive fee lawsuit\u00a0in which a provisional settlement was recently reached\u2014expert testimony was almost certain to play a critical role had the case proceeded to trial.\u00a0 Just before the provisional settlement was reported, as a potential prelude\u00a0to\u00a0the clash between experts … <\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,5,16],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"entry","1":"post","2":"publish","3":"author-jgarofolo","4":"post-39","6":"format-standard","7":"category-401k-plans","8":"category-erisa-expert-testimony","9":"category-health-plans"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/erisa-experts.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/erisa-experts.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/erisa-experts.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/erisa-experts.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/erisa-experts.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=39"}],"version-history":[{"count":30,"href":"https:\/\/erisa-experts.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":330,"href":"https:\/\/erisa-experts.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39\/revisions\/330"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/erisa-experts.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/erisa-experts.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/erisa-experts.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}