HUNTINGTON — Two retired employees say that Cabell Huntington Hospital has violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by misrepresenting its lifetime retiree health and welfare benefits.
Martha "Marty" Blenko and Laura Mullarky filed the class-action lawsuit alleging that CHH repeatedly represented to them they could retire as non-union employees beginning at age 62 and retain their health insurance if they had attained 17 years of credited service, according to a complaint filed May 25 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.
"Cabell further informed the plaintiffs Cabell would provide comparable health insurance to the non-union retirees until they became Medicare-eligible, and that Cabell would then provide a comparable, cost-free Medicare supplement throughout the rest of those retirees’ lives," the complaint states.
Petsonk
Blenko said she and Mullarky and the class members just want what they were promised.
"Cabell's action takes away precious benefits to people who have planned their retirement income on the knowledge that we would not have medical health premiums to pay," Blenko said in an interview with The West Virginia Record. "The group of retirees includes many elderly (80+years) with severe medical problems. We don’t deserve to have our benefits pulled out from underneath us at such a medically vulnerable time in our lives. We want the plans and benefits we worked for and were promised. The retirees proudly and loyally gave their service to Cabell Huntington Hospital because of these benefits. We were told during the hiring process, in numerous employee meetings, and again at retirement, that we would receive these benefits for life. The change of the lifetime health benefits policy should not include those currently retired."
However, the plaintiffs claim the hospital breached its fiduciary duties by misleading them regarding their retiree welfare benefits and inducing them to retire based on misrepresentations about their likely receipt of future benefits under the operative welfare benefit plan, according to the suit.
The plaintiffs claim in January, the hospital announced the termination of welfare benefits for non-union retirees effective March 31, which was later extended to September.
The plaintiffs want an injunction to prevent the termination of retiree welfare benefits because the loss of benefits would cause them to immediately postpone or forego critical medical care during a medically vulnerable time as the population is attempting to emerge from a global pandemic.
"Defendant also failed to timely provide plaintiffs with a copy of the summary plan description (SPD) when the plaintiffs first became participants in the relevant plan," the complaint states. "Specifically, defendant failed to timely provide plaintiffs with a copy of the SPD when it adopted a new retiree welfare benefits plan in 2019, and yet continued misrepresenting the retiree welfare benefits would remain the same as they had been under the prior plan in place from 1955 to 2019."
The plaintiffs want the court to compel the hospital to place them in the position they reasonably expected to occupy had the hospital provided the retiree welfare benefits as they represented, and as the hospital indeed had done for many years, according to the suit.
Blenko and Mullarky retired from Cabell as non-union employees in 2018 and 2019. They met with hospital personnel prior to retirement and discussed their retirement plans.
The plaintiffs are seeking a court order to enjoin the defendant from further violation of their fiduciary duties under ERISA and compel the defendant to honor the terms of the retirement plan. They are represented by Samual B. Petsonk of Petsonk PLLC in Beckley and Bren J. Pomponio and Laura Davidson of Mountain State Justice in Charleston.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia case number: 3:21-cv-00315
