Tenth Circuit Dismisses ERISA Appeal as Non-Final Where District Court Remanded Benefits Determination to Plan Administrator

In Kirsten W. v. California Physicians’ Service, No. 25-4029, 2026 WL 1433128 (10th Cir. May 21, 2026), the Tenth Circuit dismissed an appeal from an ERISA mental-health benefits dispute, concluding in an unpublished order and judgment that the district court’s grant of summary judgment was not a “final decision” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because the order remanded the benefits determination to the plan administrator without specifying a sum certain. The decision reaffirms the circuit’s longstanding view that ERISA remand orders generally do not satisfy the final-judgment rule, and it offers procedural guidance on how plaintiffs may seek appellate review after post-remand proceedings conclude.

Kirsten W. filed suit in 2019 on behalf of herself and her minor son, C.W., after their health benefits plan denied claims for residential treatment at two behavioral health facilities. The operative complaint named California Physicians’ Service, doing business as Blue Shield of California, and the Trinet Group, Inc. Section 125, Section 129, and Flexible Spending Account Plan. The complaint alleged that the defendants violated ERISA and the Mental Health Parity & Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (the Parity Act). Trinet operated the self-funded plan, and Blue Shield served as the plan’s agent and administrator. Blue Shield denied the residential-treatment claims after concluding that C.W. could have received care in an outpatient setting.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on the ERISA claim, to Blue Shield on the Parity Act claim, and to Trinet on all claims. The district court found that remand to the plan administrator was the appropriate remedy on the ERISA claim and warned that Blue Shield could not use the remand to reevaluate the claim on a new rationale not raised in the administrative record. The district court granted summary judgment to Trinet because the plaintiff had not requested—and the court would not order—an award of benefits for which Trinet could be responsible at that time. After the district court entered judgment, the plaintiff appealed, and the Tenth Circuit ordered the parties to address whether the summary judgment order constituted a final, appealable decision.

The panel held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction. Applying the case-by-case approach to ERISA remand orders set forth in Metzger v. UNUM Life Insurance Co. of America, the court explained that remand orders are not final where issues remain to be resolved on remand and the parties’ legal arguments can be raised in a future appeal. The district court’s judgment did not contain a sum certain because it remanded to Blue Shield to determine the amount of benefits owed, and the grant of summary judgment to Trinet expressly contemplated further proceedings—any liability attributable to Trinet could arise only if Blue Shield arbitrarily denied benefits on remand or refused to pay benefits it determined were owed.

The court addressed and rejected each of the appellant’s jurisdictional arguments. First, the court rejected the contention that the district court erroneously “dismissed” Trinet, explaining that asserting error in a decision does not by itself confer appellate jurisdiction, and that the appellant had not shown why she could not return to the district court and seek relief against Trinet if Blue Shield refused to pay benefits awarded on remand. Second, the court rejected the argument that the remand order was “boundless” and “unbridled,” noting that the alleged error remains reviewable after final judgment and that the district court had in fact imposed the procedural guardrails the appellant requested and that David P. v. United Healthcare Insurance Co. requires. Third, the court declined to apply the doctrine of practical finality, observing that the doctrine carries limited force in the ERISA context, must be narrowly construed, and has rarely if ever been successfully applied to an ERISA remand order in the circuit. The appellant identified no issue that would be rendered effectively unreviewable by awaiting a final award of benefits.

In closing, the panel offered procedural guidance in response to the appellant’s request for clarification on when to file a notice of appeal. Aligning itself with the First, Second, Third, and Sixth Circuits, the court explained that the district court retains jurisdiction over the case during the remand process and that the entry of judgment and closure of the case on the docket does not prevent further proceedings. After the remand concludes, the appellant may seek judicial review in the district court by motion filed in the same civil action rather than by commencing a new action. Once the district court disposes of any post-remand motions in a manner that leaves no room for further proceedings, a party may then appeal to the Tenth Circuit.