Burns v. Orthotek, Inc. Employees' Pension Plan & Trust

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the doctrine of substantial compliance \cannot cure\ the violation of an \explicit statutory requirement\ in ERISA's text
• holding that the doctrine of substantial compliance “cannot cure” the violation of an “ex‐ plicit statutory requirement” in ERISA’s text
• explaining that “[w]e can affirm on any ground that the record fairly supports and the appellee has not waived” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• noting that, arguably compliance “literal language” would “lead to the absurd result of invalidating [an agreement] that the [signing party] admits that he signed but now attempts to disavow on [a] technicality”
• \The concept of substantial compliance is part of the body of federal common law that the courts have developed for issues on which ERISA does not speak directly.\ (quoting Davis v. Combes, 294 F.3d 931 , 940 (7th Cir. 2002) )
• “The concept of substantial com‐ pliance is part of the body of federal common law that the courts have developed for issues on which ERISA does not speak directly.” (quoting Davis v. Combes, 294 F.3d 931, 940 (7th Cir. 2002)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).