The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim of Sherry Yali Liu’s action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against the Kaiser Permanente Employees Pension Plan for the Permanente Medical Group, Inc., and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., challenging the denial of Liu’s claim for pension benefits due to her deceased sister.

​

Liu contended that before her sister died, she elected to receive her earned pension benefits as a lump sum and designated Liu as her beneficiary. Kaiser denied Liu’s claim, reasoning that the sister initiated, but did not finalize, an election and beneficiary designation, and that substantial compliance with the Plan’s requirements is not a basis for benefits under ERISA.

​

The panel held that the state law doctrine of substantial compliance is available under ERISA for benefit elections, as it is for beneficiary designation changes under Becker v. Williams, 777 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2015). The panel clarified that Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings & Investment Plan, 555 U.S. 285 (2009), did not nullify the doctrine of substantial compliance, consistent with this court’s application of the doctrine in Becker.

The panel concluded that under California law, Liu’s complaint plausibly alleged that her sister substantially complied with the Plan’s requirements. The panel therefore reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

​

The panel addressed additional claims in a concurrently-filed memorandum disposition.

​

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/08/31/24-4303.pdf