Case Summary
**Case Summary: Paul Deppenbrook v. PBGC**
**Docket Number:** 2605438
**Court:** [Insert appropriate court information here, e.g., U.S. District Court]
**Date:** [Insert relevant dates]
**Parties:**
- **Plaintiff:** Paul Deppenbrook
- **Defendant:** Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)
**Background:**
Paul Deppenbrook filed a case against the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) after a dispute arose regarding his pension benefits. The PBGC is a federal agency that protects retirement incomes by insuring defined benefit pension plans. In this case, Deppenbrook contended that the PBGC had improperly calculated his pension benefits, resulting in a lower payout than what he believed he was entitled to.
**Key Issues:**
1. **Calculation of Benefits:** The core issue revolves around the accuracy of the pension benefit calculation performed by the PBGC.
2. **Legal Authority:** The case also addresses the legal authority of the PBGC to interpret pension plan documents and apply regulations governing benefit calculations.
**Arguments:**
- **Plaintiff’s Argument:** Deppenbrook argued that the PBGC’s calculations were erroneous and did not reflect the terms of the original pension plan. He claimed that the agency failed to properly account for certain factors that would increase his benefit amount.
- **Defendant’s Argument:** The PBGC defended its calculations, asserting that it acted within its authority and followed the appropriate regulations in determining Deppenbrook's benefits.
**Court Findings:**
[Insert any findings the court made or decisions issued related to the case. This may include whether the court upheld or overturned the PBGC's benefit calculations, as well as any implications for pension law.]
**Conclusion:**
The outcome of Paul Deppenbrook v. PBGC provided clarity on the review process of pension benefit calculations and reaffirmed the authority of the PBGC in ensuring that pension plans adhere to federal regulations. The ruling underscored the importance of accurate data reporting by pension plans to protect beneficiaries.
**Note:** Due to the lack of specific details about the court's ruling and subsequent appeals or actions, further research may be required for a complete understanding of the case's implications and final outcomes.