Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 91-8531
TOM PEARCE,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Cross-Appellant,
versus
CARRIER CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellant,
Cross-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(July 10,1992)
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, SMITH and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This matter is before the court on the appeal of Carrier
Corporation of post-trial motions following an adverse judgment on
jury verdict in an Age Discrimination in Employment Act case,
together with the cross-appeal by Tom Pearce of an adverse summary
judgment on claims for pension benefits and severance pay and
adverse rulings on reinstatement or alternatively for front pay.
We are presented with an issue of first impression regarding
whether an ADEA claimant must prove actual loss to recover damages

for health insurance benefits or, in the alternative, whether the
claimant automatically recoups the value of the insurance fringe
benefit regardless of whether he has purchased substitute coverage
or incurred out-of-pocket medical expenses. There is a split in
the circuits. We agree with our colleagues in the Seventh and
Ninth Circuits and now hold that an ADEA claimant is limited to
recovery of those expenses actually incurred by either replacement
of the lost insurance or occurrence of the insured risk.1
Finding no merit in any other issue raised, the appealed
judgments and rulings of the trial court are AFFIRMED.
1 See Kossman v. Calumet County, 800 F.2d 697 (7th Cir. 1986)
and Galindo v. Stoody Co., 793 F.2d 1502 (9th Cir. 1986) (plaintiff
must prove purchase of alternative coverage or expenses incurred in
lieu thereof); but see Fariss v. Lynchburg Foundry, 769 F.2d 958
(4th Cir. 1985); Blackwell v. Sun Electric Corp., 696 F.2d 1176
(6th Cir. 1983) (not requiring actual damages proof).

2