The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable David H. Coar
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Plaintiffs, Local 705 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Health and Welfare Fund and its trustees, filed a complaint arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.,against Defendant Rafeeq Bilal, alleging that he has failed to reimburse the Plaintiffs for medical payments made on his behalf, in violation of the parties' reimbursement and subrogation agreement. Before the court is Bilal's motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
The relevant allegations in the complaint, which this court must accept as true for present purposes, are as follows:
The Local 705 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Health and Welfare Fund is an "employee welfare benefit plan," within the meaning of ERISA, and the individual plaintiffs are currently its fiduciaries. The employee welfare benefit plan was established under a collective bargaining agreement between the Local 705 International Brotherhood of Teamsters and certain employers and employer associations, and must be maintained and administered in accordance with the provisions of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended, and ERISA. (Compl. ¶2.)
Bilal was a "participant" within the meaning of ERISA, eligible for benefits pursuant to the provisions of the Local 705 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Health and Welfare Plan of the Local 705 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Health & Welfare Fund (the "Plan") at all relevant times. (Compl. ¶4.) Under the Plan, Plaintiffs provide medical benefits for eligible participants and their dependents to cover portions of the cost of medical bills, hospitalization expenses, medical treatments, and medical supplies. The basis upon which such benefits are to be provided is set forth in the provisions of the Plan. (Compl. ¶5.)
On November 21, 2003, Bilal sustained a head injury while employed by DHL. (Compl. ¶6.) On or about January 22, 2004, an Application for Adjustment of Claim (Application for Benefits) was filed on behalf of Bilal with the Illinois Industrial Commission, n/k/a Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission. (Compl. ¶7.) The Plaintiffs have submitted a copy of the Application for Adjustment of Claim along with their complaint. (Compl. Ex. B.)
On January 31, 2004, Bilal signed a "Reimbursement and Subrogation Agreement" acknowledging that payments for medical expenses had been and would be made on his behalf by the Plaintiffs under the provisions of the Plan as a result of the head injury sustained in the work-related accident described above. He further agreed to reimburse the Plaintiffs in accordance with the Plan to the extent of any net recovery of benefits paid by the Plaintiffs as a result of legal action or settlement. (Compl. ¶8.) The Plaintiffs submitted a copy of the Reimbursement and Subrogation Agreement along with their complaint. (Compl. Ex. C.) They also submitted a copy of Section 2.17 of the Plan, entitled "Right of Subrogation and Authorization of Reimbursement." (Compl. Ex. A.)
The Plaintiffs paid $5,642.93 in medical expenses on behalf of Bilal for the head injury he sustained in the work-related accident on November 21, 2003. Bilal also received $7,150 for short-term disability benefits. (Compl. ¶9.) According to the Plaintiffs, Bilal owes fringe benefit contributions to the Welfare Fund and Pension Fund in the respective amounts of $8,448 and $8,496 to cover his continued eligibility for benefits in those Funds for the period when he was not working due to his work-related accident on November 21, 2003. (Compl. ¶10.)
On April 21, 2008, the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission approved a settlement in Case Nos. 04 WC 03220 and 04 WC 05155. The total amount of $117,000 was obtained on behalf of Bilal from DHL and its workers' compensation insurer, Specialty Risk Services. (Compl. ¶11.) The Plaintiffs submitted a copy of the Settlement Contract Lump Sum Petition and Order along with their complaint. (Compl. Ex. D.)
Despite numerous demands made upon the Defendant by counsel for the Plaintiffs, Bilal has failed and refused to reimburse the Plaintiffs for the payments made on his behalf as described above. (Compl. ¶13.)*fn1 The Plaintiffs claim that Bilal's refusal to reimburse the Plaintiffs violates the plan's provisions and the terms of the Reimbursement and Subrogation Agreement, and that it unjustly enriches Bilal. (Compl. ¶14.)
On a motion to dismiss, the court accepts as true all well-pleaded allegations in the plaintiff's complaint, drawing all possible inferences in the plaintiff's favor. See Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008). Dismissal is appropriate only if, after accepting as true all facts in the complaint, the plaintiff cannot plausibly succeed. Id. at 1086. Where, as here, the plaintiff submits along with its complaint copies of contracts and other documents referenced therein, the court also may consider those documents. Centers v. Centennial Mortg., Inc., 398 F.3d 930, 933 (7th Cir. 2005). If the unambiguous terms of an attached contract ...