PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2207

JODY ROSE, as Administratrix of the Estate of Kyree Devon Holman,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PSA AIRLINES, INC.; PSA AIRLINES, INC. GROUP BENEFIT PLAN; UMR, INC.; QUANTUM HEALTH, INC., a/k/a MyQHealth by Quantum; MCMC, LLC,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

PSA AIRLINES GROUP INSURANCE PLAN; PSA AIRLINES GROUP HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN; PSA AIRLINES PLAN B EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN; PSA AIRLINES SHARED SERVICES ORG.,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cv-00695-GCM-DCK)

Argued: December 9, 2022 Decided: September 11, 2023

Before RICHARDSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by published opinion. Judge Richardson wrote the opinion, in which Judge Quattlebaum joined. Judge Heytens wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. USCA4 Appeal: 21-2207 Doc: 69 Filed: 09/11/2023 Pg: 2 of 32

ARGUED: Norris Arden Adams, II, ESSEX & RICHARDS, P.A., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Edward Joseph Meehan, GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED, Washington, D.C.; Brian D. Boone, ALSTON & BIRD LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Caitlin Hale Walton, ESSEX RICHARDS, P.A. Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ross P. McSweeney, GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED, Washington, D.C., for Appellees PSA Airlines, Inc. and PSA Airlines, Inc. Group Benefit Plan. Brandon C.E. Springer, ALSTON & BIRD LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee UMR, Inc. Rachel Ann Smoot, TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER, LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee Quantum Health, Inc. Victoria Therese Kepes, Alfred Victor Rawl, Jr., GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee MCMC, LLC.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-2207 Doc: 69 Filed: 09/11/2023 Pg: 3 of 32

RICHARDSON, Circuit Judge:

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act’s § 502(a)(1)(B) allows a

beneficiary to “recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan.” And ERISA’s

§ 502(a)(3) allows a beneficiary to sue for “other appropriate equitable relief.” This case

requires us to answer when—and under what conditions—a plaintiff may seek monetary

relief under one of those provisions.

Jody Rose’s son had a rare heart condition. He died at the age of twenty-seven,

awaiting a heart transplant, which Rose says that Defendants—who administered her son’s

employer-based health benefits program—wrongfully denied. So she sued on behalf of his

estate, seeking monetary relief under both § 502(a)(1)(B) and § 502(a)(3). The district

court dismissed both claims. As to Rose’s (a)(1)(B) claim, the court held that money was

not one of the “benefits” that her son was owed “under the terms of his plan.” And, as to

her (a)(3) claim, the court held that her requested monetary relief was too similar to money

damages and was thus not “equitable.”

We now affirm in part and vacate in part. The district court correctly held that

money was not one of the “benefits” that Rose’s son was “due” “under the terms of his

plan.” So it was right to dismiss her (a)(1)(B) claim. But we must vacate its complete

dismissal of Rose’s (a)(3) claim. While the