C.F.R. » Title 29 » CHAPTER XXV—EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › SUBCHAPTER C—REPORTING AND DISCLOSURE UNDER THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT OF 1974 › PART 2520—RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR REPORTING AND DISCLOSURE › Subpart B—Contents of Plan Descriptions and Summary Plan Descriptions

29 C.F.R. § 2520.102-1

[Reserved]

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1994–2009 · leading case: Edward N. Hughes v. 3m Retiree Med. Plan & Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. (\3m\")", 281 F.3d 786 (8th Cir. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Edward N. Hughes v. 3m Retiree Med. Plan & Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. (\3m\")", 281 F.3d 786 (8th Cir. 2002). “See 29 C.F.R. §§ 2520.102-1 to -4, ,104b-l to -4.”
Horton v. Phoenix Fuels, Co., 611 F. Supp. 2d 977 (D. Ariz. 2009). “” 29 C.F.R. § 2520.102-1 . Courts have held that the “plan description” and the SPD can be the same document.”
Jensen v. SIPCO, Inc., 38 F.3d 945 (8th Cir. 1994). “See 29 C.F.R. §§ 2520.102-1 to - 5, .104b-l to -4.”
Krishan v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 873 F. Supp. 345 (C.D. Cal. 1994). “§ 1022 (a), ERISA's regulations have merged the summary plan description and the plan description into one document: "The plan description required by section 102 of the Act shall consist of a summary plan description as described in section 102(b) of the Act.”
Fanney v. Trigon Ins., 11 F. Supp. 2d 829 (E.D. Va. 1998). “” 29 C.F.R. § 2520.102-1 et seq. These benefit handbooks, or SPDs, which must be distributed to all employees, are deemed to comply with federal law if they contain, inter alia, the following language: “If you have a claim for benefits which is denied or ignored, in whole or in…”
Edward N. Hughes v. 3M Retiree Med., No. 01-1970 (8th Cir. Feb. 28, 2002). “At the very end of the booklet, under “Future of the Plan,” it states that “[t]he Company fully intends to continue this Plan indefinitely, but reserves the right to change or discontinue it if necessary.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.