NASHVILLE - One small group of Caterpillar Inc. retirees notched another legal victory in their struggle to win free company health care, but the wider court battle to secure it for thousands of others goes on.

The latest court decision, made public Nov. 21, saw U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger deny Caterpillar's motion to stay a preliminary injunction she'd earlier granted to a particular group of 270 retirees, giving them health care without fees.

These former employees worked for the company's Logistics Services section and were deemed to be covered by a contract that guaranteed retirees heath care with no premiums or deductibles.

Caterpillar wanted the injunction stayed while it appeals the judge's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit Court in Cincinnati.

The company claims the retirees are included in another contract that charges for health benefits. Caterpillar has a second appeal pending, protesting the refusal of the judge to dismiss a wider court case seeking free health care for 3,700 retirees.

Caterpillar said it was unhappy with the judge's latest ruling, and the fight goes on. "We are disappointed with this decision, and we will continue to pursue our appeals on this case, which impacts a very small number of retirees," company spokesman Jim Dugan said.

Lawyers for the retirees say the crucial decision will be from the appellate court on the attempt to dismiss the entire case for the big group of retirees.

"We're going to know a lot more about his case when the Court of Appeals rules on the motion to dismiss," said Michael Mulder, a partner in the Chicago law firm of Meites, Mulder, Mollica and Glink.

"We argued that appeal in September, and the decision could come at any time now, and I would think we're going to hear before the end of the year," Mulder added.

Jerry Grandon, chairman of the Caterpillar Retirees Chapter of United Auto Workers Local 751 in Decatur, also is waiting anxiously. "We're just hoping for the best," he said.

Trauger, in rejecting Caterpillar's motion to stay her injunction, repeatedly said retirees showed they were suffering harm because they were denying themselves health care they feared they couldn't afford.

"The court found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated ? they are suffering from physical, emotional and financial harm," she wrote.

treid@herald-review.com|421-7977