The Sixth Circuit rejected a participant’s argument that the plan’s subrogation provision was not enforceable because it was only in the plan’s summary plan description, and not in the trust agreement that the participant argued was the operative plan document.  The Court determined that the subrogation provision was contained within a document that served as the summary plan description as well as the plan document.  The Court further ruled that “[n]othing in Amaraprevents a document from functioning both as the ERISA plan and as an SPD.”  The Sixth Circuit’s ruling, Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Inc. Health Benefit Plan v. Moore, No. 14-4048, 2015 WL 5010985 (Aug. 25, 2015), is consistent with a recent decision from the Eleventh Circuit, which we previously reported on here.