Karla SCHIKORE, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. BANKAMERICA SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee

Opinion by Judge REINHARDT; Dissent by Judge TASHIMA

Plaintiff Karla Schikore, a 20-year employee of Bank of America, NT & SA, seeks lump-sum disbursement of retirement benefits she has accrued as a participant in the BankAmerica Supplemental Retirement Plan, an employee benefits plan covered under the ERISA statute. The defendant Plan denied Schikore’s request on the ground that she failed properly to follow the Plan’s payment election procedure. Specifically, the Plan contends that Schikore failed to submit the requisite benefit payment election form one year in advance of her request for lump-sum disbursement, as mandated by the Plan’s rules, and that it has no record of having received the form. Schikore asserts that she mailed the form well in advance of the deadline, that she submitted evidence of such a mailing, and that the common law mailbox rule, under which receipt is presumed upon proof of mailing, should apply. Whether the federal and state common law mailbox rule applies to an ERISA plan’s benefit decisions is a question of first im *959 pression in this Circuit. As Schikore was appealing a denial of benefits under her retirement plan, the district court had…

dissenting:

I disagree with the majority that the Plan Administrator abused its discretion in denying Schikore’s claim.

First, the majority implies that a heightened standard of review may be appropriate because of a potential conflict of interest between the employer responsible for funding Schikore’s benefits and the Plan Administrator responsible for determining Schikore’s eligibility for benefits. Maj. op. at 960 n. 2. It is true that an “apparent” conflict of interest exists when a plan administrator is responsible for both funding and paying claims. 1 McDaniel v. Chevron Corp., 203 F.3d 1099, 1108 (9th Cir.2000). However, unless the plan participant comes forward with “‘material, probative evidence, beyond the mere fact of the apparent conflict, tending to show that the fiduciary’s self interest caused a breach of the administrator’s fiduciary obligations,’ ” the district court should apply the traditional abuse of discretion standard. Id. (quoting Atwood v. Newmont Gold Co., 45 F.3d 1317, 1322-23 (9th Cir.1995)); Bendixen v. Standard Ins. Co., 185 F.3d 939, 943 (9th Cir.1999). Schikore has not pointed to any evidence in the record to support her claim of a conflict of…

269 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2001) KARLA SCHIKORE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE-CROSS-APPELLANT, v. BANKAMERICA SUPPLEMENTAL SI RETIREMENT PLAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-CROSS-APPELLEE. Nos. 99-16952, 99-17017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Argued and Submitted April 13, 2001 Filed October 16, 2001 [Copyrighted Material Omitted] Margaret M. Farley, Esq., Farley Law Offices, San Rafael, California, for the defendant-appellant-cross-appellee. Paul V. Simpson, Leigh Ann Alderman, Esq., Simpson, Garrity & Innes, San Francisco, California, for the plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-98-03857(MEJ) Before: Reinhardt, Tashima, and Berzon, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Reinhardt; Dissent by Judge Tashima REINHARDT, Circuit Judge: 1 Plaintiff Karla Schikore, a 20-year employee of Bank of America, NT & SA, seeks lump-sum disbursement of retirement benefits she has accrued as a participant in the BankAmerica Supplemental Retirement Plan, an employee benefits plan covered under the ERISA statute. The defendant Plan denied Schikore's request on…