OPINION

The appellant, Pamela J. McLeod (“McLeod”), appeals from summary judgment on her claims pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1371 (West Supp.1994). McLeod argued before the district court that the ERISA plan administrator breached a fiduciary duty under 29 U.S.C. § 1104 (a) 1 by failing to notify her that effective May 1, 1990, she had become eligible to apply for cancer insurance coverage from American Family Life Insurance Company (“AFLAC”). She contends that her employer, the News-Register of McMinnville, Oregon, did not inform her of this opportunity until July 1990. On July 19, 1990, before she was notified of the opportunity to obtain cancer coverage, McLeod’s physician told her she had cancer. McLeod applied for cancer coverage on July 24, 1990. The application was granted but later rescinded when the insurance company discovered that McLeod had a previous cancer diagnosis. McLeod seeks an award of compensatory damages equal to the benefits that would have been paid to her had she elected coverage under the cancer policy. McLeod prays for compensatory damages for emotional distress in the amount of $100,000. She also seeks statutory damages for the appellees’ failure to respond to her request for the plan documentation.

Oregon Lithoprint Inc., dba News-Register Publishing Company, and the News-Register Employees’ Insurance Plan argued that, as a matter of law, even if they failed to notify McLeod timely about the existence of a cancer insurance policy, she could not recover monetary damages under ERISA because she was not a plan “participant.” Both parties agreed that the issue of whether *958 McLeod was a plan “participant” as defined by ERISA was a legal question for the district court to resolve.

The district court held that McLeod was not a “participant” or “beneficiary” with respect to the cancer coverage and therefore that she “lacks standing to maintain an ERISA claim against her employer for breach of fiduciary duties or failure to provide AFLAC plan documents.” The court also held that, even if McLeod had standing, she could not recover compensatory damages. The court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. McLeod appealed.

DISCUSSION

I. Whether McLeod Is a “Participant” Under an “Employee Benefit Plan” Subject to ERISA

A major issue is whether McLeod was a “participant” in the cancer policy. Whether an employee is a participant in an ERISA plan is critical because it involves both standing and subject matter jurisdiction. Stanton v. Gulf Oil Corp., 792 F.2d 432, 434 (4th Cir.1986). The district court found that McLeod had no standing because she was not a participant. 2

The appellees argue that McLeod is not a participant because, under the cancer plan, “it is a legal and factual impossibility for an employee to receive a plan benefit, or to be eligible for a plan benefit, unless there is an individual policy of insurance issued to that employee.” The statutory definition of participation in an ERISA plan contradicts the appellee’s conclusion:

In determining whether McLeod is a “participant,” the analysis focuses on her status of employment, not whether cancer coverage was a distinct plan or a benefit program. The fact that McLeod was not issued an actual policy does not preclude her from being a participant. “[T]he term ‘participant’ is naturally read to mean either employees in, or reasonably expected to be in, currently covered employment.” Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 117 , 109 S.Ct. 948, 958 , 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989) (quotation omitted). In construing the phrase “may become eligible” in section 1002(7), the Supreme Court states: “In order to establish that he or she ‘may become eligible’ for benefits, a claimant must have a colorable claim that (1) he or she will prevail in a suit for benefits, or that (2) eligibility requirements will be fulfilled in the future.” Id. at 117-18 , 109 S.Ct. at 958 .

McLeod’s argument is that she was eligible to apply for benefits on May 1, 1990, and that she was eligible to receive benefits, had she applied for them by the time she was diagnosed with cancer., Thus, her employment status clearly renders her a participant. McLeod presents a “colorable claim” that she would prevail in a suit for benefits resulting from an alleged breach of fiduciary duty. 3 *959 Because one of the two Firestone tests is met, McLeod is a participant and has standing. We reverse the district court on this issue.

II. Whether McLeod May Recover for Breach of Fiduciary Duty Where No Recovery Is Sought for the Plan as a Whole

McLeod argues there was a breach of fiduciary duty under section 404(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1104 (a), which requires a fiduciary to exercise the standard of care a prudent person would exercise. See n. 1, supra. For the appellees’ alleged breach of fiduciary duty in failing to inform her of the cancer coverage, McLeod requests the following “equitable or remedial relief”:

The Supreme Court has held that a recovery for breach of fiduciary duty under section 409(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1109 (a), 4 must inure to the benefit of the plan as a whole. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134, 142 , 105 S.Ct. 3085, 3090 , 87 L.Ed.2d 96 (1985). We have followed Russell to strictly limit the remedies available under ERISA. Watkins v. Westinghouse Hanford Co., 12 F.3d 1517, 1528 (9th Cir.1993); Sokol v. Bernstein, 803 F.2d 532, 536, 538 (9th Cir.1986).

In Sokol , we held: “ERISA grants no private right of action by a beneficiary qua beneficiary; rather, it accords beneficiaries the right to sue on behalf of the entire plan if a fiduciary breaches the plan’s terms.” Id. In doing so, we extended the Supreme Court’s holding in Russell , which was limited to section 409(a), 29 U.S.C. § 1109 (a) only, see Russell, 473 U.S. at 139 n. 5, 105 S.Ct. at 3088 n. 5, to section 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(3), 5 as well. We stated:

Sokol, 803 F.2d at 535 (citation omitted).

McLeod argues that our decision in Sokol conflicts with the Supreme Court’s opinion in Mertens v. Hewitt Assocs., — U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 2063 , 124 L.Ed.2d 161 (1993). We disagree. After Mertens was decided, we reiterated that section 409(a) precludes claims *960 unless they inure to the benefit of the plan as a whole rather than to an individual. Wat kins, 12 F.3d at 1528 . We are bound by that decision. 6

McLeod does not seek to recover for the plan as a whole. Instead, she requests money damages pursuant to section 502(a)(3) for herself as the potential beneficiary. Consequently, McLeod is precluded from recovering damages for the claim that the appellees breached a fiduciary duty pursuant to section 1104(a)1(B) for the failure to act with “the care, skill, diligence and prudence required of a fiduciary under ERISA.” 7 See Olson v. General Dynamics Corp., 960 F.2d 1418, 1424 (9th Cir.1991) (Reinhardt, J. concurring) (“[T]he federal courts have consistently ruled that ERISA plaintiffs may not recover extra-contractual damages.”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 2968 , 119 L.Ed.2d 588 (1992); Johnson v. District 2 Marine Eng’rs Beneficial Ass’n,—A ssociated Maritime Officers, Medical Plan, 857 F.2d 514, 518 (9th Cir.1988) (finding no need to reexamine the holding of Sokol unless the Supreme Court indicates otherwise). We affirm the district court on this issue.

III. Whether McLeod May Receive Compensatory Damages Under 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(3)

McLeod argues that section 502(a)(3) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(3), authorizes a participant to bring a civil action to obtain “appropriate equitable relief’ to redress violations of the fiduciary responsibility provisions of ERISA. She argues that the district court erroneously held that the compensatory damages that she requested in her first amended complaint were unavailable under ERISA. She also argues that, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(3), she is entitled to recover $100,000 in extra-contractual damages for emotional distress resulting from the failure to obtain cancer coverage.

Recent decisions by the Supreme Court and this circuit foreclose McLeod’s arguments. “As the Supreme Court has recently held [in Mertens v. Hewitt Assocs., — U.S. -,-, 113 S.Ct. 2063, 2068-70 (1993) ], equitable relief in the form of the recovery of compensatory damages is not an available remedy under 20 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(3).” Watkins, 12 F.3d at 1520 .

IV. Whether Summary Judgment Was Proper on the Claim for Relief for Failure to Furnish Copies of the Plan Instruments

McLeod claims that, notwithstanding whether she is entitled to compensatory damages, she is entitled to statutory damages.

ERISA provides in relevant part that:

29 U.S.C. § 1024 (b)(4). McLeod alleges that thé appellee failed to comply with this section:

No. 92-450MA, First Amended Complaint, at 4, paras. 16 & 17.

Because we conclude that McLeod was a participant, she may be entitled to receive statutory damages for the administrator’s alleged failure to provide the required plan documentation:

29 U.S.C. § 1132 (c) (1982).

The appellees note that McLeod was provided an employee handbook. The administrator also testified that it was their practice to notify participants of the cancer coverage. Both of these events are alleged to have taken place on April 24, 1990. In October 1991 McLeod asked for the plan in writing and was informed that none existed because the “plan” was represented exclusively by the AFLAC representatives. Both parties use the term “plan” and “policy” interchangeably to discuss the cancer coverage, which confuses the issue as to whether a plan document exists and was provided or not. We do not reach the subissue of whether the cancer coverage was a distinct plan or individual benefit program, as the facts are disputed as to whether the delivery of materials McLeod received constitutes compliance with the statutory requirements. We remand on the issue of whether the appellant is entitled to statutory damages for the administrator’s failure to provide her with “plan” documents. See Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 291-92 , 102 S.Ct. 1781, 1791-92 , 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982) (the court of appeals may resolve the issue only if the record permits but one resolution).

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part. REMANDED for trial on the claim of failure to provide requested documents pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1024 (b)(4). The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

. In relevant part, section 1104(a)(1)(B) provides for a “prudent man" standard of care:

. The district court found that McLeod was not a "participant” or "beneficiary” with respect to the AFLAC cancer coverage and therefore, she "lackfed] standing to maintain an ERISA claim against her employer for breach of fiduciary duties or the failure to provide AFLAC plan documents.” The district court based its decision on the following factors: (1) “participant” does not include potential claimants; (2) no cases were found in which a plaintiff premised an ERISA case on the failure to disclose the existence of an available policy; (3) the cancer policy was not part of the same plan under which McLeod received disability insurance; and (4) nothing in ERISA extends liability to a claim for coverage under a policy that was never validly issued.

. The Sixth Circuit has held that:

Astor v. International Business Machs. Corp., 1 F.3d 533, 538 (6th Cir.1993) (quoting Hughes v. General Motors Corp., 852 F.2d 568 (6th Cir.1988) (unpublished) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1081 , 109 S.Ct. 1535 , 103 L.Ed.2d 839 (1989)); accord Vartanian v. Monsanto Co., 14 F.3d 697, 701-02 (1st Cir.1994).

. 29 U.S.C. § 1109 (a) states:

(Emphasis added.)

. Section 503(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(3), states:

. We are unpersuaded by McLeod's citation of decisions from other circuits. Such decisions do not constitute a change in the law of this circuit. See Montana v. Johnson, 738 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir.1984) (only en banc decisions of this court, Supreme Court decisions, or subsequent legislation constitute changes in the law).

. The district court found: "Finally, I note that the remedy plaintiff seeks would be contrary to the overriding purpose of ERISA to protect plans as a whole, rather than individual participants.”