Laserfiche WebLink
not render a Former Coal Miner a 'retired employee" as re41ui:red <br />under section 111~(a).~~ <br />(2) <br />Although not exprescly stated in the statute, the •retired <br />employees" referred to in section 111~(a) lust be retirses o:f the <br />Debtor. Indeed, it would not sake sense to require debtors 1:0 <br />pay retiree benefits to persons to whom the debtor has no <br />obligation. <br />In this case, the UMWA Pensioners, the Surviving Spouse:: of <br />UMwA Pensioners, the Unknown Pensioner Statuc Ehaployees and <br />Spouses are not CFiZ'c retired employees, or spouses or <br />dependents of CFiI's retired employees, as required under section <br />1114(x) because all of these individuals are not retired pursuant <br />11. The DOL argues that "it is indisputable that these benefits <br />have been paid only to the dependents of ~ployeea who have died <br />as a result o! pneumoconiosis, or directly to employee who are <br />totally disabled and incapable of any gainlul employment.' DoL <br />Memorandum in Support o! the ]-pplication p. S. CFiI QispuY.es the <br />DOL's assertion inacmuch as section 902(!)(1)(B)(i) and (ii) do <br />not require that to be 'totally disabled" lorser Coal ![!Hers ;oust <br />be incapable of gainlul employaent. 8orever, wen to the cuctent <br />that the Former Coal Miners would be dewed to not be abls to <br />obtain gainful employment, CFiI aaintains that disabled W=•so;ns <br />are not 'retired employees" within the saaninq o! section <br />1114(x). The clause stating that 'retiree benefits" is !oz' tlhe <br />payment of "medical, surgicnl, or hospital care banelits, or <br />benefits in the event of sickness, accident, disability, ox' d~aath <br />. ," is conditioned on a lindinq that the payments for the <br />defined set of benefits be to a 'retired employee" or a spous~a or <br />dependent of a "zetirad employee.' li Q.S.C. f 111~(a}. <br />32 <br />