Russell Johnson, III v. Lucent Technologies Inc.
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Appellant Russell H. Johnson appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee Lucent Technologies Inc. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.
In 1989, Johnson brought suit against Lucent’s predecessor in interest, AT&T, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for failure to pay long-term disability benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). The Pennsylvania district court’s judgment. required Johnson to provide periodic proof of treatment and afforded AT&T the right to move the district court to terminate benefits if Johnson failed to comply. Between 1990 and 2002, Johnson fully complied with the 1989 judgment—as amended in 1990—by providing periodic documentation evidencing medical treatment. Beginning in 2003, however, Johnson ceased providing documentation. Accordingly, in 2006, the Pennsylvania district court granted Lucent’s motion to terminate benefits; Lucent ceased making long-term disability payments to Johnson in January 2007. The Third Circuit affirmed the termination of benefits. Johnson v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 285 Fed.Appx. 854, 855 (3d Cir. 2008).