group employee medical plan.” While it does specify that Sunflower will pay all premiums and future claims due under Sunflower’s employee medical plan and it notes the conditions precedent to the termination of that funding, the consent judgment does not by itself explain, with any detail, the intended benefits and procedures for receiving those benefits, nor does it require, at least directly, an ongoing administrative program apart from that required by the group employee medical plan itself. Stated plainly, the consent judgment lacks any indication that Sunflower intended to create a new plan for Spires, and instead unambiguously provides for Spire’s reinstatement into an existing medical plan. See Deboard v. Sunshine Mining and Refining Co., 208 F.3d 1228, 1238 (10th Cir. 2000) (<HOLDING>). “Some essentials of a plan, fund, or program
holding that montanas constitution does not create a right to welfare holding that state breach of contract action preempted because it relates to employee benefit plan holding that employers promise to provide welfare benefits until death of retiree did not create vested rights because employer had expressly reserved the right to terminate or amend the plan holding that disability provision in comprehensive retirement plan constituted a welfare plan holding that the employer intended to create a new employee welfare benefit plan