relating to his pri- or termination. On January 28, 1997, Ot-tum wrote to Pratt and advised him that he was suspended with pay. At a February hearing on Heavener’s grievance, the General Board went into executive session and emerged from it with the news that they would not hold the Heavener grievance hearing and that Pratt’s suspension with pay would continue because they had decided to dissolve the LCPO. On March 13, 1997, the General Board formally voted to dissolve the corporation because its financial solvency was in jeopardy. [¶ 13] On June 4, 1997, Pratt amended his complaint, adding as defendants, Lincoln County, the Board of County Commissioners, and the defendants-in-interest in this interlocutory appeal — Ottum, Thompson and Quinn. In addition to adding two new cl nn. 1989) (<HOLDING>). Because Pratt was suspended with pay, his due
holding that a plaintiff in an erisa denial of benefits case bears the burden of proving her entitlement to contractual benefits holding that any constitutionally protected property interest employee had as a result of his employment contract has been satisfied by payment of full compensation  including salary and benefits  due under the contract holding that the statute of limitations for a miscalculation of benefits claim began to run at the time at which some event other than a denial of a claim should have alerted the claimant to his entitlement to the benefits he did not receive holding that whether children are legitimate for purposes of entitlement to insurance benefits is determined by state law holding plaintiff fails however to offer any evidence pointing to a claim of entitlement to such benefits of employment beyond his regular salary