CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
ELIZABETH A. CLEMONS, DAVID R. KHALIEL, and LARRY W. TAYLOR, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants,
v.
NORTON HEALTHCARE INC. RETIREMENT PLAN,
Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
   Nos. 16-5063/5124
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville.
3:08-cv-0069—Thomas B. Russell, District Judge.
Argued: June 22, 2017
Decided and Filed: May 10, 2018
Before: SILER, McKEAGUE, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. This appeal is the latest installment in an ERISA litigation saga that has spanned almost ten years. At the risk of oversimplifying their case, the Plaintiff– Retirees claim that Defendant Norton Healthcare, Inc. Retirement Plan (“Norton”) underpaid them under the terms of the plan. The district court found that the plan was unambiguous in the Retirees’ favor. We agree with the district court on most issues. However, because the Plan is ambiguous in one crucial respect and may not comply with ERISA in another, we VACATE the district court’s summary judgment order and REMAND for further examination of those issues. Consequently, we also VACATE the district court’s damages order, including its certification of a class under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2) during the damages stage. In doing so, we mean no slight to the district judges and their staff, who ought to be praised for their commitment to this case and for their patience with the complex issues it presents.