matrix absence management medical provider network

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.

Matrix absence management medical provider network