Court Rejects Attorney Fee Claim in ERISA Short-Term Disability Case After Post-Litigation Payment

At Roberts Disability Law, we closely track how courts apply ERISA’s fee-shifting standards, particularly in cases where claimants seek attorney’s fees after a plan voluntarily pays benefits. In recent months, several federal courts have grappled with whether post-litigation payments justify fee awards under the “catalyst theory.” The latest decision, House-Forshee v. Benefits Committee of Western & Southern Financial Group Co. Flexible Benefits Plan, et al., No. 1:24-CV-110, 2025 WL 2980448 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 23, 2025), adds to this developing area by clarifying the limits of fee recovery when benefits are reinstated without a judicial ruling.

Background

Plaintiff R. House-Forshee worked as a customer service representative for a subsidiary of Western & Southern Financial Group. After initially approving her short-term disability (STD) benefits, the company terminated them effective July 7, 2023, citing missing medical documentation such as MRI and neurosurgeon records.

House-Forshee appealed internally, but the Benefits Committee denied her appeal in August 2023. She then filed suit under ERISA § 502(a), alleging that the denial was arbitrary and capricious and that the plan failed to provide a full and fair review.

While litigation was pending, Western & Southern administratively reopened her STD claim, reversed its prior decision, and paid all benefits owed for the disputed period. The employer then moved to dismiss the case as moot, which the court granted—but left open the possibility of a post-judgment motion for attorney’s fees under ERISA’s discretionary fee provision, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1).

The Fee Motion and the “Catalyst” Theory

House-Forshee later sought attorney’s fees, arguing that her lawsuit was the catalyst for Western & Southern’s decision to pay benefits. Under the “catalyst theory,” a court may award fees even without a judgment on the merits if the lawsuit was a substantial factor prompting the plan’s voluntary action.

Western & Southern opposed the request, asserting that the reversal stemmed from new medical documentation submitted with House-Forshee’s long-term disability (LTD) appeal months after the STD lawsuit was filed—not from the litigation itself.

Previously, the court had ruled that ERISA’s fee provision could in principle support a catalyst theory, but it had deferred ruling on the facts. In this latest decision, the court concluded that the evidence did not show the lawsuit caused the plan’s reversal.

The Court’s Analysis

Chief Magistrate Judge Stephanie Bowman found that House-Forshee did not meet the threshold showing of “some degree of success on the merits” required under Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co., 560 U.S. 242 (2010).

The court pointed to undisputed evidence that Western & Southern’s Benefits Committee reopened the STD claim only after receiving new medical documentation tied to the separate LTD appeal—not because of the pending litigation or settlement discussions. The case, the court noted, saw “essentially no activity—no discovery and no judicial rulings” between filing and the plan’s reversal, undercutting any inference that the lawsuit was the catalyst.

The King Factors

Even assuming eligibility for fees, the court found that the five King factors—which guide the exercise of discretion under Sixth Circuit precedent—did not support an award:

1. No bad faith: The record reflected confusion and administrative error but no intentional wrongdoing.
2. Ability to pay: Western & Southern could pay a fee award, but this factor was neutral.
3. Deterrence: There was little deterrent value where the denial resulted from incomplete documentation.
4. Common benefit: The case raised no broad ERISA issues or common benefit to other plan participants.
5. Relative merits: The employer’s position was stronger, supported by administrative evidence.

Accordingly, the court recommended denying the fee motion in full.

Key Takeaways

• Voluntary benefit payments do not automatically entitle claimants to attorney’s fees under ERISA.
• To recover fees under the catalyst theory, a plaintiff must show clear, causal evidence that the lawsuit itself prompted the plan’s reversal.
• Courts applying Hardt and King will closely examine timing, record development, and causation before awarding fees in post-payment cases.

This case reinforces that ERISA’s fee provision, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1), gives courts broad discretion—and that claimants seeking fees after voluntary plan reversals must present more than temporal coincidence.

At Roberts Disability Law, we continue to monitor these developments to help claimants and practitioners understand how courts balance fairness, causation, and deterrence in ERISA fee disputes.