Donald Corley v. Commonwealth Industries, Inc., No. 14-5789 (6th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0343n.06 Case No. 14-5789 FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT DONALD CORLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH INDUSTRIES, INC. CASH BALANCE PLAN; COMMONWEALTH INDUSTRIES, INC.; and BENEFITS COMMITTEE FOR THE COMMONWEALTH INDUSTRIES, INC. CASH BALANCE PLAN Defendants-Appellees. ____________________________________/ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) May 08, 2015 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY Before: MERRITT, BOGGS, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges. MERRITT, Circuit Judge. Throughout this ERISA litigation, Plaintiff Donald Corley has repeatedly argued that the plain language of his pension-benefits Plan entitles him to a larger lump-sum pension payment than he actually received. This appeal is the second time this case has been before our court on this issue. See Fallin v. Commonwealth Indus., Inc., 695 F.3d 512 (6th Cir. 2012). In the first appeal, we held that the Benefits Committee’s interpretation of the Case No. 14-5789, Corley v. Commonwealth Indus. et al. Plan’s terms was not arbitrary or capricious. See id. at 516. Corley fully briefed this issue then, and it is precisely the same argument he raises now. Because we squarely decided the issue in the first appeal, we hold that the law of the case doctrine precludes us from reconsidering it. See Vander Boegh v. EnergySolutions, Inc., 772 F.3d 1056, 1071 (6th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
