Substantial Compliance: When a Dying Participant's Unfinished Paperwork Still Counts
Plans sometimes deny a retirement death benefit because a loved one didn't complete every last step before they died. Federal courts have a doctrine for exactly this situation — and in August 2026, the Ninth Circuit confirmed it reaches further than most plan administrators want families to know.
In Liu v. Kaiser Permanente Employees Pension Plan, a family nearly lost $676,980.77 in pension benefits over a confirmation step the decedent died three days before she could complete.
On This Page
What "Substantial Compliance" Means Under ERISA
Substantial compliance is a doctrine that lets a court honor a participant's benefit election or beneficiary designation even when the participant didn't complete every administrative step a plan calls for — so long as the participant used the plan's own designated process and did everything reasonably possible to carry it out. Courts developed the doctrine to prevent a specific kind of injustice: a family losing everything because death, illness, or simple human limitation interrupted a paperwork process at the worst possible moment.
The doctrine is not a loophole and it is not automatic. It applies only when two things are true: the participant acted through the plan's own mechanism (its actual election form, its actual online portal, its actual beneficiary-designation process), and the participant did all that could reasonably be expected of her before whatever stopped her from finishing.
For years, substantial compliance was understood mainly as a rule for beneficiary designations — who a plan pays when a participant dies. In August 2026, the Ninth Circuit extended it to a second, equally consequential category: benefit elections — how a participant chooses to receive what a plan already owes them.
The Case That Extended the Doctrine: Liu v. Kaiser Permanente
The decedent worked for The Permanente Medical Group and was a participant in the Kaiser Permanente Employees Pension Plan. After she was diagnosed with cancer, she took medical leave. As her illness progressed, she was hospitalized and required round-the-clock care.
At her request, a pension benefit election was submitted through the plan's own online system on March 26, 2022. The election chose a lump-sum rollover of her earned pension benefits and named her sister as beneficiary. Three days later, on March 29, 2022, she died.
What Kaiser argued: the decedent had "initiated but not finalized" her election, and that substantial compliance is not a recognized basis for obtaining ERISA benefits at all.
What the Ninth Circuit held: substantial compliance — previously applied to beneficiary designations under Becker v. Williams, 777 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2015) — also applies to benefit elections. The doctrine exists "to circumvent the harsh results that come from overly technical adherence to a plan's exact terms," and that purpose applies with equal force whether what's incomplete is a beneficiary designation or an election of how benefits will be paid.
Why it mattered here: Kaiser's own unpublished internal practice required a confirmation step and an acknowledgment of certain notices after the online election was submitted — steps the decedent never had the chance to complete because she died first. The court found that neither the Plan document nor the Summary Plan Description ever disclosed that these extra steps were required to make the election valid. A plan cannot deny a claim based on an internal practice it never told participants about.
Applying California law — under which a participant who has done all she reasonably could to effect a change, but dies before the change is completed, satisfies substantial compliance — the panel held the complaint plausibly alleged the decedent did everything that could reasonably have been required of her. The case was reversed and returned to the district court.
Where the Doctrine Reaches Its Limit
Substantial compliance is generous, but it is not unlimited. The Ninth Circuit was careful in Liu to explain why an older Supreme Court decision, Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings & Investment Plan, 555 U.S. 285 (2009), did not block the family's claim.
The line: the plan's own process vs. an outside document
Kennedy involved an attempt to change who would receive benefits through a document that existed outside the plan's own designated mechanism — not through the plan's actual beneficiary-change form or process. The Supreme Court held that a plan administrator is generally entitled to rely on the plan's own paperwork, not on outside documents the plan was never built to consider.
In Liu, by contrast, the decedent used the plan's own online election system, exactly as the plan intended participants to use it. That distinction is what let the Ninth Circuit hold that Kennedy "did not nullify" substantial compliance: the doctrine can still rescue an incomplete attempt made through the plan's own channel, even though it cannot rescue an attempt made entirely outside it.
In practice, this means substantial compliance is most likely to help a family when a loved one:
- Used the plan's actual election form, portal, or beneficiary-designation process — not a will, a divorce decree, or a note left for family;
- Took every step reasonably available given their circumstances before death or incapacity intervened; and
- Was denied based on a plan requirement that was never clearly disclosed in the plan document or Summary Plan Description.
It is far less likely to help when the dispute is really about a document or intention expressed outside the plan's own mechanism — that is a different legal question, governed by different rules. Read more about how divorce affects a beneficiary designation.
Why This Matters Nationwide, Not Just in the Ninth Circuit
Liu is Ninth Circuit precedent, binding in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. But the underlying question — whether a plan can deny a benefit over an incomplete step a participant never had the chance to finish — is not unique to any one circuit. Every federal court applying ERISA's common law has had to wrestle with the same tension between honoring a plan's written terms and refusing to let technicalities defeat a participant's plain intent.
Dorian Law represents claimants and beneficiaries in ERISA-governed retirement death-benefit disputes nationwide. Wherever your case is filed, the reasoning in Liu — and the doctrine it rests on — is directly relevant to how a plan's technical denial should be evaluated.
If a Plan Denied a Death Benefit Over Unfinished Paperwork
If you're facing this situation right now, three things matter most:
- Get the plan document and Summary Plan Description. If the "required step" you're accused of missing isn't clearly spelled out in either one, that omission may be exactly what turned the tide in Liu.
- Document what your loved one actually did — timestamps, portal confirmations, call logs, anything showing they used the plan's own process and intended to complete it.
- Move quickly. ERISA appeal deadlines are unforgiving, and the internal appeal record is usually the only evidence a court will ever see.
Related reading: How Divorce Affects a Beneficiary Designation · Winning Interpleader · Case Review Corner: Navigating the Labyrinth of ERISA Beneficiary Disputes
Frequently Asked Questions
Substantial compliance is a doctrine that allows a court to honor a participant's benefit election or beneficiary designation even if a final administrative step was never completed, as long as the participant used the plan's own process and did everything reasonably possible to finish it. Courts apply it to prevent harsh, technical forfeitures of benefits a participant clearly intended to claim.
It can, if the participant used the plan's own designated mechanism and did all that could reasonably be expected of her. In Liu v. Kaiser Permanente Employees Pension Plan, No. 24-4303, 2026 WL 2562029 (9th Cir. Aug. 31, 2026), the Ninth Circuit held that a decedent who submitted an online election through her plan's own system three days before she died had done enough, even though an internal confirmation step was never completed.
The doctrine's reasoning is not limited to any one plan type. Liu involved a defined-benefit pension plan, and earlier Ninth Circuit precedent (Becker v. Williams, 777 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2015)) applied it to a beneficiary designation. The core question — did the participant use the plan's own process and do all she reasonably could — applies across plan types, though the specific facts of each plan and denial always matter.
Becker v. Williams applied substantial compliance to a beneficiary designation — who receives a benefit. Liu extended the same doctrine to a benefit election — how a benefit is paid out. The Ninth Circuit held the doctrine's underlying purpose applies equally to both situations.
No, not when the participant used the plan's own mechanism. Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings & Investment Plan, 555 U.S. 285 (2009), involved an attempt to change a beneficiary through a document outside the plan's own process. The Liu panel explained that Kennedy does not nullify substantial compliance where, as there, the participant acted through the plan's own designated system.
Liu is binding precedent only within the Ninth Circuit. However, the substantial compliance doctrine and the underlying tension it resolves — honoring plan terms without letting technicalities defeat clear participant intent — arise under ERISA nationwide. Dorian Law evaluates these arguments in every circuit where we handle retirement death-benefit disputes.
Request the plan document and Summary Plan Description to see whether the step you're told was "required" was ever actually disclosed to participants. Gather any evidence showing your loved one used the plan's own process and intended to complete it. Then move quickly — ERISA appeal deadlines are strict, and the internal appeal record is usually the only evidence a reviewing court will consider.
Immediately. ERISA claims are generally subject to strict administrative appeal deadlines, and a lawsuit typically cannot proceed until those internal appeals are exhausted. Because courts usually review only the administrative record that existed by the end of the appeal, evidence gathered late is often evidence a court will never see.
Meet the Author
Fighting a Denied Retirement Death Benefit?
Dorian Law represents beneficiaries and families in ERISA-governed retirement death-benefit disputes nationwide. If a plan denied a claim over incomplete paperwork, we can tell you quickly whether substantial compliance applies to your situation.