Vaughn Park v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services Claims Denial of Disability Benefits Arbitrarily
Vaughn Park, a participant in an employee benefit plan providing disability insurance coverage renewed after March 1, 2013, sued Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. ("Sedgwick") and Entergy Corporation ("Entergy") in the United States District Court, alleging the defendants initially approved but later denied his disability benefits based on the same medical information. The complaint, filed July 14, 2026, contends the denial was "unilaterally, arbitrarily and capriciously" made and seeks past and future benefits under Count One: Claim for Disability Benefits Under the Plan (29 U.S.C. § 1132), a civil monetary penalty for failure to provide requested plan documents, attorney’s fees under Count Four: Attorney's Fees (29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)), and other relief. The complaint alleges that the amount of harm to Plaintiff is continuing.
Park, who the complaint alleges is disabled due to memory impairment and dizziness/vertigo (Compl. ¶11), requested plan documents from the administrator on June 3, 2026 (Compl. ¶23). The defendants failed to provide the documents within the 30-day deadline, triggering the daily penalty under federal law. Under Count Three, a claim for a civil monetary penalty under 29 U.S.C. § 104(b)(4) and § 502(c)(1) against Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. and Entergy Corporation, Park seeks a civil monetary penalty for each day after July 3, 2026, the deadline for the Plan Administrator to furnish the requested documents (Compl. ¶¶21, 23). The disability insurance policy under which Plaintiff made a claim was renewed after March 1, 2013, a date that establishes the legal framework governing the Plan’s administration (Compl. ¶9). On June 3, 2026, Plaintiff requested Plan documents from the Plan Administrator, as evidenced by Exhibits 1 and 2 attached to the complaint (Compl. ¶23). The deadline for the Plan Administrator to provide the requested documents was July 3, 2026, 30 days after the request was made (Compl. ¶23).
The complaint further alleges Sedgwick and Entergy "failed to conduct a full and fair review, have ignored relevant medical information," and did not obtain or consider supporting medical evidence (Compl. ¶18).
Mechanism of Disability Benefits Denial and Document Request Timeline
The complaint alleges that Vaughn Park, a participant in Entergy Corporation’s employee benefit plan, suffers from memory impairment and dizziness/vertigo that rendered him disabled. The Plan, which provides disability insurance coverage, was renewed after March 1, 2013, a key date for determining the applicable legal standards (Compl. ¶9). Defendants Sedgwick Claims Management Services and Entergy initially approved Park’s claim for disability benefits but later denied it, the filing states, using the same medical information that had supported the initial approval. The complaint describes the denial as "unilaterally, arbitrarily and capriciously" executed, stating, "Defendants have unilaterally, arbitrarily and capriciously denied Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits" (Compl. ¶12).
According to the filing, Sedgwick and Entergy failed to conduct a full and fair review of Park’s claim. The complaint alleges the defendants "ignored relevant medical information" and "did not obtain or consider other supporting medical information," quoting the document: "Defendants have failed to conduct a full and fair review, have ignored relevant medical information..." (Compl. ¶18). No additional medical evidence or procedural justification for the reversal is cited in the complaint.
On June 3, 2026, Park sent a written request to the Plan Administrator seeking copies of the latest updated Summary Plan Description and related documents (Compl. ¶23). Under federal law, the Plan Administrator had 30 days—until July 3, 2026—to furnish the requested materials. The complaint cites the statutory language requiring that "the Administrator shall, upon written request of any Participant or Beneficiary, furnish a copy of the latest updated Summary, Plan Description..." (Compl. ¶21). The complaint alleges that no documents were provided by the deadline. Park filed suit on July 14, 2026, eleven days after the statutory response period expired. The disability insurance policy under which Park made his claim was renewed after March 1, 2013, a fact that may influence the interpretation of the Plan’s terms and the defendants’ obligations (Compl. ¶9). On June 3, 2026, Plaintiff requested Plan documents from the Plan Administrator, as detailed in Exhibits 1 and 2 (Compl. ¶23). The deadline for the Plan Administrator to provide the requested documents was July 3, 2026, 30 days after the request (Compl. ¶23).
Parties: Vaughn Park, Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., and Entergy Corporation
Vaughn Park, a resident of Little Rock, Arkansas, is the plaintiff in the action. The complaint identifies Park as a participant in an employee benefit plan that provides disability insurance coverage, which was renewed after March 1, 2013 (Compl. ¶9). Park alleges he suffers from memory impairment and dizziness/vertigo, conditions that form the basis of his disability claim (Compl. ¶11).
Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. is named as a defendant. The complaint describes Sedgwick as a foreign corporation serving as the claims administrator and fiduciary of the Plan. According to the filing, Sedgwick initially approved Park’s disability benefits claim but later denied it, a decision Park alleges was "unilaterally, arbitrarily and capriciously" made (Compl. ¶12). The complaint further alleges Sedgwick failed to conduct a full and fair review of Park’s claim, ignored relevant medical information, and did not obtain or consider additional supporting medical evidence (Compl. ¶18). As the claims administrator, Sedgwick is also alleged to have failed to provide Plan documents requested by Park on June 3, 2026, within the 30-day period ending July 3, 2026 (Compl. ¶23). The complaint includes a cause of action for a civil monetary penalty under 29 U.S.C. § 104(b)(4) and § 502(c)(1) against Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. for failing to furnish the requested Plan documents within the statutory deadline (Compl. ¶23).
Entergy Corporation is the second defendant. The complaint identifies Entergy as a foreign corporation, the Plan sponsor, named fiduciary, and party in interest. As the Plan sponsor and named fiduciary, Entergy is alleged to share responsibility for the administration of the Plan and the handling of Park’s disability benefits claim. The complaint asserts that both Sedgwick and Entergy are jointly liable for the alleged arbitrary denial of benefits under Count One: Claim for Disability Benefits Under the Plan (29 U.S.C. § 1132) and the failure to provide requested Plan documents, which forms the basis for Count Three’s civil monetary penalty claim (Compl. ¶¶12, 23). The disability insurance policy under which Park’s claim was made was renewed after March 1, 2013, a fact that may impact the legal standards applied to the defendants’ actions (Compl. ¶9).
Disability Benefits Claim and Equitable Relief
Vaughn Park’s complaint alleges that Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. and Entergy Corporation wrongfully denied him disability benefits under an employee benefit plan governed by federal law. Under Count One, a claim for disability benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132, Park seeks recovery of all past and future disability benefits to which he is entitled, plus accrued interest. The filing asserts that Park, who suffers from memory impairment and dizziness/vertigo, was initially approved for benefits before Defendants reversed their decision based on the same medical information, acting in what the complaint describes as an "arbitrary and capricious" manner. "Defendants have unilaterally, arbitrarily and capriciously denied Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits," the complaint states (Compl. ¶12). The disability insurance policy under which Park made his claim was renewed after March 1, 2013, a date that establishes the legal framework for evaluating the defendants’ conduct (Compl. ¶9).
Count Two seeks equitable relief under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3). On June 3, 2026, Park requested Plan documents from the Plan Administrator, a request that went unfulfilled by the July 3, 2026 deadline (Compl. ¶23). The disability insurance policy under which Park’s claim was made was renewed after March 1, 2013, a fact that may be relevant to the court’s assessment of the defendants’ obligations under the Plan (Compl. ¶9).
Civil Monetary Penalty and Attorney’s Fees
The complaint seeks a civil monetary penalty of $110.00 per day for each day after July 3, 2026, that Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. and Entergy Corporation failed to provide Vaughn Park with requested Plan documents. Under Count Three, a claim for a civil monetary penalty under 29 U.S.C. § 104(b)(4) and § 502(c)(1) against Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. and Entergy Corporation, Park alleges that the defendants failed to comply with their statutory obligation to furnish the latest updated Summary Plan Description and related documents within 30 days of his written request. The disability insurance policy under which Park made his claim was renewed after March 1, 2013, a date that may be relevant to the interpretation of the Plan’s disclosure obligations (Compl. ¶9). On June 3, 2026, Plaintiff requested Plan documents from the Plan Administrator, as evidenced by Exhibits 1 and 2 (Compl. ¶23). The deadline for the Plan Administrator to provide the requested documents was July 3, 2026, 30 days after the request (Compl. ¶23).
The complaint cites the statutory language requiring that "the Administrator shall, upon written request of any Participant or Beneficiary, furnish a copy of the latest updated Summary, Plan Description..." (Compl. ¶21). Park made such a request on June 3, 2026, triggering the 30-day deadline that expired on July 3, 2026 (Compl. ¶23). As of the July 14, 2026 filing date, the defendants had not provided the documents, exposing them to the $110.00 daily penalty for each day of non-compliance. The complaint also notes that the disability insurance policy under which Park’s claim was made was renewed after March 1, 2013, which may impact the scope of the Plan’s obligations under federal law (Compl. ¶9).
In Count Four, a claim for attorney’s fees under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g), Park also requests an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under federal law. The statute permits a court to award fees and costs to either party in an action brought by a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary. The complaint asks the court to award "costs of this action and reasonable attorney’s fees" as part of the requested relief (Compl. prayer for relief). The disability insurance policy under which Park made his claim was renewed after March 1, 2013, a fact that may be relevant to the court’s consideration of the fee request (Compl. ¶9).
Civil Monetary Penalty for Failure to Provide Plan Documents
The complaint seeks a civil monetary penalty of $110.00 per day for each day after July 3, 2026, alleging that defendants Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. and Entergy Corporation failed to provide plan documents requested by plaintiff Vaughn Park. Under Count Three, a claim for a civil monetary penalty under 29 U.S.C. § 104(b)(4) and § 502(c)(1) against Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. and Entergy Corporation, Park asserts that the Plan Administrator was required to furnish the requested documents within 30 days of his written request. The complaint alleges that Park requested the documents on June 3, 2026, making the 30-day deadline July 3, 2026 (Compl. ¶23). The disability insurance policy under which Park made his claim was renewed after March 1, 2013, a date that may influence the interpretation of the Plan’s disclosure obligations (Compl. ¶9). On June 3, 2026, Plaintiff requested Plan documents from the Plan Administrator, as detailed in Exhibits 1 and 2 (Compl. ¶23). The deadline for the Plan Administrator to provide the requested documents was July 3, 2026, 30 days after the request (Compl. ¶23).
The penalty provision, cited in Count Three, is intended to enforce compliance with disclosure requirements under federal law. The complaint quotes the plan language requiring the administrator to "furnish a copy of the latest updated Summary, Plan Description" upon written request of any participant or beneficiary (Compl. ¶21). No documents were provided by the deadline, according to the filing, and the complaint seeks the $110.00 per day penalty from July 3, 2026, forward. The disability insurance policy under which Park’s claim was made was renewed after March 1, 2013, a fact that may be relevant to the court’s assessment of the defendants’ compliance with federal disclosure requirements (Compl. ¶9).
The requested relief includes the $110.00 per day penalty from July 3, 2026, forward, in addition to past and future disability benefits under Count One: Claim for Disability Benefits Under the Plan (29 U.S.C. § 1132) and other equitable relief. The complaint does not specify a total dollar amount for the penalty, as the duration of the violation remains ongoing. The statutory penalty is designed to incentivize timely compliance with document requests and to compensate participants for the harm caused by delayed access to Plan information. The disability insurance policy under which Park made his claim was renewed after March 1, 2013, a date that may impact the court’s evaluation of the defendants’ conduct (Compl. ¶9).
Relief Sought and Procedural Posture
The complaint filed by Vaughn Park seeks comprehensive relief for the alleged arbitrary denial of disability benefits and failure to provide requested Plan documents. Under Count One, a claim for disability benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132, Park demands an award of all past and future disability benefits to which he is entitled, along with accrued interest. The disability insurance policy under which Park made his claim was renewed after March 1, 2013, a date that may influence the court’s assessment of the relief sought (Compl. ¶9). On June 3, 2026, Plaintiff requested Plan documents from the Plan Administrator, as evidenced by Exhibits 1 and 2 (Compl. ¶23). The deadline for the Plan Administrator to provide the requested documents was July 3, 2026, 30 days after the request (Compl. ¶23).
In addition to compensatory relief, Park seeks a civil monetary penalty of $110.00 per day for each day after July 3, 2026, the deadline for Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. to provide the requested Plan documents. The penalty is authorized under Count Three, a claim for a civil monetary penalty under 29 U.S.C. § 104(b)(4) and § 502(c)(1) against Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. and Entergy Corporation, which mandates the disclosure of Plan documents upon written request by a participant or beneficiary. The complaint alleges that Park made such a request on June 3, 2026, and that the defendants failed to comply within the statutorily required 30-day period (Compl. ¶23). The disability insurance policy under which Park’s claim was made was renewed after March 1, 2013, a fact that may be relevant to the court’s consideration of the penalty (Compl. ¶9).
Under Count Four, a claim for attorney’s fees under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g), the complaint requests an award of "costs of this action and reasonable attorney’s fees" as permitted under federal law. The statute provides the court with discretion to award fees and costs to either party in an action brought by a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary. The complaint further requests "such other, further, and different relief as may be just and proper," leaving the door open for additional equitable or legal remedies the court may deem appropriate (Compl. prayer for relief). The disability insurance policy under which Park made his claim was renewed after March 1, 2013, a date that may impact the scope of the relief the court may grant (Compl. ¶9).
The allegations described here are taken from the filing and remain unproven; no responsive pleading is reflected in the source document.
David Brunk is a civil litigation attorney. He can be reached at david@newmanbrunk.com.
From the Complaint Public Court Record
VAUGHN PARK VS. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. and ENTERGY CORPORATION COMPLAINT FILED u;s, DISTRICT COURT EASTEFtN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 14 2026 T_. DOWNS, CLERK By:}~ P]tpgg. PLAINTIFF DEP CLERK DEFENDANTS Plaintiff, Vaughn Park, by and through his undersigned attorney, Brandon Lacy of Lacy Law Fi1111, and for his Complaint against Defendants, Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. and Entergy Corporation, states: JURISDICTION AND VENUE I. This is an action arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. ("ERISN~), to recover benefits due under an employee benefit plan, to redress breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA, and to recover costs and attomey~s fees as provided by ERISA. 2. This is an action brought pursuant to section 502(a), (e)(l) and (f) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § l 132(a), (e)(l) and (f). The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 29 U.S.C. l 132(e)(l) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Under section 502(t) ofERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(t), the Court has jurisdiction without respect to the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties. 3. Venue is properly laid in this district pursuant of section 502(e)(2) ofERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 139l(b), in that one or more of the Defendants resides or is found in this district. This case assigned to District Judge ('I\ .. \\~( and to Magistrate Judge X:. f'Ji C'\
PARTIES 4. Plaintiff Vaughn Park is an individual residing in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. 5. Defendant Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. CSedgwick") is a foreign corporation \Vith its principal place of business located in a state other than Arkansas. Defendant Sedgwick served as and performed the function of the administrator of Plaintiffs claim. As claims administrator, Sedgwick made the determination to approve or disa
Questions about this topic: david@newmanbrunk.com