(a) Form, content and filing. All requests by participants, beneficiaries, and fiduciaries for the Secretary of Labor to exercise his enforcement authority pursuant to section 502(a)(5), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(5), with respect to a violation of, or the enforcement of, parts 2 and 3 of title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the Act) shall be in writing and shall contain information sufficient to form a basis for identifying the participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary and the plan involved. All such requests shall be considered filed if they are directed to and received by any office or official of the Department of Labor or referred to and received by any such office or official by any party to whom such writing is directed.
(b) Consideration. The Secretary of Labor retains discretion to determine whether any enforcement proceeding should be commenced in the case of any request received pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, and he may, but shall not be required to, exercise his authority pursuant to section 502(a)(5) of the Act only if he determines that such violation affects, or such enforcement is necessary to protect claims of participants or beneficiaries to benefits under the plan.
[43 FR 50175, Oct. 27, 1978]
Notes of Decisions
Com. Life Ins. v. Superior Court, 764 P.2d 1059 (Cal. 1988).
· cites it 2× “( 29 C.F.R. § 2560.502-1 et seq.) ERISA also contains a broad preemption provision.”
Byrd v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 758 F. Supp. 2d 492 (M.D. Tenn. 2010).
· cites it 2× “§ 1133 (2) 2 and 29 C.F.R. §§ 2560.502-1 , -503-1 by refus *511 ing to disclose its correspondence with or its consultative reports prior to issuing Defendant’s final administrative denial and when the Defendant refused to disclose the operational policies for not disclosing…”
Pacconi v. Trs. of the United Mine Workers, 264 F. App'x 216 (3d Cir. 2008).
“§ 1133 ; 29 C.F.R. § 2560.502-1 . To enable plan participants to contest denials of their claims, and to enable effective judicial review of the plan administrators’ determinations, “a reviewing court must focus on the evidence available to the plan administrators at the time of…”
Adams v. Cyprus Amax Mineral Co., 927 F. Supp. 1407 (D. Colo. 1996).
“§ 1133 and the regulations promulgated thereunder ( 29 C.F.R. § 2560.502-1 et seq.) for failure to provide any claim procedure whatsoever for filing and processing of claims for benefits under the AMAX ESP.”
Marcin v. Reliance Stand. Life Ins. Co., 50 F. Supp. 3d 23 (D.D.C. 2014).
“See 29 C.F.R. § 2560.502-1 (addressing the form and content of requests for enforcement and how those requests shall be considered); id.”
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.