Judge Boyle ruled fairly in GE case

The May 1 news story "Claims put Boyle's new bench seat at risk," and the article at Salon.com on which it was based, referred to the case of Bursell v. General Electric. The article said that two months after U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle purchased GE stock, he issued a ruling unfavorable to Kenneth Bursell. I represented Bursell in that litigation. The Salon.com article was misleading and inaccurate. Boyle's rulings were favorable to Bursell.

On Oct. 22, 2002, Boyle denied GE's request to stay the lawsuit pending resolution of Bursell's worker's compensation claim. The ruling cited the considerable harm if he were not allowed to pursue his claim (for disability benefits) until after his pending worker's compensation claim is resolved. On Jan. 31, 2003, Boyle agreed with Bursell that he was entitled to have his claims for benefits reviewed by the court under the de novo standard, the most favorable standard of review available in such cases. Then, after conducting a bench trial in April 2003, Boyle ruled that Bursell was entitled to short-term disability benefits, denied his claim for a disability pension and dismissed without prejudice the long-term benefits claim. Finally, Boyle ruled on Aug. 25, 2004, that plaintiff was entitled to recover his attorney's fees from GE.

The Salon.com article suggested that the outcome of the case was unfavorable to Bursell. To the contrary, Boyle's favorable decision on the short-term benefits claim convinced GE's claims administrator, MetLife, to approve long-term benefits for the maximum benefit period allowed under the plan. The claim for attorney's fees and costs was settled. I do not take issue with Boyle's ruling on the disability pension, the one claim that was denied outright.

According to the article, Boyle purchased GE stock two months before he issued his ruling in 2004. In fact he announced his expected ruling at the conclusion of the bench trial in 2003, before he purchased the GE stock. In any event, I do not believe that his ownership of less than $15,000 of GE stock creates even the appearance of a conflict of interest. In 2004 GE had $134 billion in revenue. The idea that a ruling over one employee's disability benefits could somehow benefit Boyle financially is ludicrous. I would not have asked him to step aside had I known of his minimal stake in this corporate behemoth.

I also disagree with groups which contend that Boyle is hostile to claims brought by disabled persons. I have represented a number of disability claimants in cases before Boyle, and am familiar with his rulings in other cases. His treatment of the parties has been entirely fair and evenhanded.

Andy Whiteman

Hartzell & Whiteman, LLP

Raleigh

(The length limit on letters was waived to permit a fuller response.)