No fewer than seven times during his employment, Hipple was reprimanded, warned, or otherwise punished for, among other things, rude and uncooperative behavior toward subordinates, peer vendors and customers. at ♡1.) His tenure as a Denso employee was fraught with misconduct. Hipple s Employment History at Denso Hipple began working for Denso as a technician in 2004.

The Court DENIES both motions for judgment, VACATES Matrix s determination on Hipple s claim, and REMANDS the matter to Matrix for further proceedings. For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that Matrix s denial of benefits was arbitrary and capricious. The parties have filed cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record. § 1132(a)(1)(B), for the recovery of short-term disability benefits. Hipple has now filed this action against Denso, Matrix, and the Plan (collectively, the Defendants ) pursuant to section 502(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ( ERISA ), 29 U.S.C. ( Matrix ), denied Hipple s claim for benefits and his administrative appeals on the ground that Hipple was not a participant in the Plan on the date of his disability. The administrator of the Plan, Matrix Absence Management, Inc.

( Denso ), and Hipple s subsequent submission of a claim for short-term disability benefits pursuant to the Denso Health & Welfare Plan (the Plan ). _/ OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD (ECF #10) DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT (ECF #11) VACATING THE DETERMINATION OF THE PLAN ADMINISTRATOR AND REMANDING THE CASE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS This dispute arises out of the termination of Paul Hipple ( Hipple ) as an employee of Denso International America, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION PAUL HIPPLE, Plaintiff, Case No.

Scott matrix absence management