| Cassie Springer-Sullivan css@ssrlawgroup.com Ms. Springer-Sullivan currently serves as a co-chair on the Benefit Claims and Individual Rights Subcommittee of the American Bar Association’s Section of Labor & Employment Law. Ms. Springer-Sullivan is also the Employee Co-Chair of the ABA Section of Labor & Employment Law’s Outreach to Law Students Task Force. Ms. Springer-Sullivan is the author of the “Employee Benefit Plans Governed by ERISA” chapter of Dividing Pensions and Other Employee Benefits in California Divorces (CEB 2006), and is a co-author of the employee benefits chapter of California Domestic Partnerships (CEB 2005). Ms. Springer-Sullivan is a Contributing Author to Sacher, et al., EMPLOYEE BENEFITS LAW (BNA), Chapter 13, “Benefit Claims and Individual Rights,” and is also a Rewrite Editor of the 2008 Cumulative Supplement of Employee Benefits law, 2nd Ed. Ms. Springer-Sullivan is also the author of the article “Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Insurance: A Turnabout by the En Banc Ninth Circuit on the Standard of Review Results in a Win for ERISA Plaintiffs,” which was published in the Fall/Winter 2006 TIPPS Employee Benefits Newsletter, and is a co-author of the Supreme Court Summary of LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc., published by the ABA’s Section of Labor & Employment Law on March 17, 2008. Ms. Springer-Sullivan is also the author of a commentary on ERISA long-term disability cases involving fibromyalgia, entitled “The Resurrection of ‘Female Hysteria’ in Present-Day ERISA Disability Law” for the Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice, a Continuation of The Berkeley Women’s Law Journal (Vol. 20, 2005). Ms. Springer-Sullivan is a frequent speaker on ERISA litigation, including the benefit claims panel concerning discovery on conflicts of interest at the 2010 Midwinter Meeting of the Section of Labor & Employment Law Employee Benefits Committee, February 5, 2010 sponsored by the ABA; “The Standard and Scope of Review: What’s Next After MetLife v. Glenn?” at the 2009 Midwinter Meeting of the Section of Labor & Employment Law Employee Benefits Committee, February 19, 2009, sponsored by the ABA; “The New Health and Welfare Plan Landscape” at the 25th Annual Conference on Employee Benefits sponsored by the Western Pension & Benefits Conference, San Francisco Chapter (April 16, 2008); “The Standard and Scope of Review: What’s Next for the Supreme Court?,” at the 2008 Midwinter Meeting of the Section of Labor & Employment Law Employee Benefits Committee, February 28, 2008, sponsored by the ABA; “Benefit Claims: Administrative Proceedings” and “Benefit Claims: Litigation,” at the 21st Annual National Institute on ERISA Basics, May 3, 2007, sponsored by the ABA; “Litigation Update - The Evolving ERISA Legal Landscape,” March 21, 2007, sponsored by the Western Pension & Benefits Conference, San Francisco Chapter; “Benefit Claims and Individual Rights Following Abatie,” at the 2007 Midwinter Meeting of the Section of Labor & Employment Law Employee Benefits Committee, February 10, 2007, sponsored by the ABA. She has also testified before the California Department of Insurance on July 10, 2007, regarding providing sufficient notification to plan participants of offset provisions, and before the Health and Disability Committee of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners on June 14, 2004, regarding prohibiting discretionary clauses in ERISA disability plans. Ms. Springer-Sullivan was a member of the Labor and Employment Law Section’s Supreme Court Panel Committee from 2007- 2008. Ms. Springer-Sullivan’s notable decisions include Nolan v. Heald College, 551 F.3d 1148, 2009 WL 69238 (9th Cir. Jan. 13, 2009) (holding that traditional summary judgment rules apply in evaluating an administrator’s conflict of interest and permitting bench trials with live testimony on the issue), on remand, 2010 WL 1837805 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2010); Saffon v. Wells Fargo & Co. Long Term Disability Plan, 511 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that insurers must engage in a clear communications process in administering ERISA benefit claims); Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (overruling previous Ninth Circuit precedent to determine that where a plan administrator operates under a financial conflict of interest, courts must review the administrator’s benefits decisions with “skepticism”); Carstens v. U.S. Shoe Corporation’s Long-Term Benefits Disability Plan, 520 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (holding that the administrator could not offset the participant’s disability benefits by the amount of her son’s Social Security benefit); Caplan v. CNA Short Term Disability Plan, 479 F. Supp. 2d 1108 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (holding that Plaintiff could simultaneously proceed with claims for breach of fiduciary duty and benefits where each claim sought different relief); Patel v. Sugen, Inc., 354 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (holding employees’ claims for severance benefits not preempted by ERISA); Fleming v. Kemper Nat. Services, Inc., 373 F. Supp. 2d 1000 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (awarding attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest); Fleming v. Kemper Natl. Services, Inc., 320 F. Supp. 2d 951 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (granting Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication as to the standard of review because defendants did not comply with the applicable Department of Labor Regulations in administering Plaintiff’s claim); and Cherene v. First American Financial Corp. Long-Term Disability Plan, 303 F. Supp. 2d 1030 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (holding material and substantial evidence of defendants’ conflict of interest existed; dismissing defendants’ reimbursement counter-claim). Ms. Springer-Sullivan also assisted in the preparation of the brief amicus curiae of the Employment Law Center-Legal Aid Society in MetLife v. Glenn, 128 S. Ct. 2343 (2008), and in the brief amicus curiae of the National Employment Lawyers Association in Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, 538 U.S.822, 123 S. Ct. 1965 (2003) (brief available at 2003 WL 1785768). Ms. Springer-Sullivan externed for the Hon. D. Lowell Jensen from August-December 2001, and served as Editor-in-Chief of the Berkeley Women’s Law Journal from 2001 to 2002. She is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the United States District Courts for the Northern, Eastern, Central, and Southern Districts of California, and the California state courts. |
