13 Cited authorities

Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn
554 U.S. 105 (2008) Cited 3,094 times 35 Legal Analyses
Holding that this sort of "dual role" conflict did not permit "a change in the standard of review, say, from deferential to de novo review," but instead was simply to be weighed as a factor in the abuse-of-discretion analysis
Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord
538 U.S. 822 (2003) Cited 2,393 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that plan administrators are not required to accept opinions of claimant's treating physicians over the conflicting opinions of reviewing physicians
Miller v. United Welfare Fund
72 F.3d 1066 (2d Cir. 1995) Cited 505 times
Holding that "a district court's review under the arbitrary and capricious standard is limited to the administrative record"
Paese v. Hartford Life Accident Ins. Co.
449 F.3d 435 (2d Cir. 2006) Cited 332 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that this Court will not generally consider an issue that was not raised before the district court, particularly when that issue is a factual one
Connors v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co.
272 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2001) Cited 159 times
Holding that "findings of fact in a bench trial based on written submissions are accorded the same deference as factual findings that are otherwise determined"
Zervos v. Verizon New York, Inc.
277 F.3d 635 (2d Cir. 2002) Cited 116 times
Holding that we had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 to review an ERISA remand order because it “was an effective denial of the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief”
Zuckerbrod v. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co.
78 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 1996) Cited 84 times
Holding that, in evaluating whether a benefit denial was arbitrary and capricious, a court considers "whether [the defendant's] decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment."
Rappa v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company
06-CV-2285 (CBA) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2007) Cited 23 times
Holding that a peer review which "was not based on any interaction with" the claimant, consisted of "specific questions by [the insurer] which were all answered in [the insurer's] favor" and which "fail[ed] to adequately and credibly rebut the findings of [the claimant's] treating physicians" did not constitute substantial evidence
Troy v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America
03 Civ. 9975 (CSH) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2006) Cited 15 times
Treating parties' motions for judgment on the administrative record as cross-motions for summary judgment
Alexander v. Winthrop
497 F. Supp. 2d 429 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) Cited 12 times
Finding plaintiff bears the burden of proving her entitlement to benefits.
Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 Cited 16,061 times 126 Legal Analyses
Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely

Alfano v. Cigna Life Insurance Company of New York et al

13 Cited authorities

Holding that this sort of "dual role" conflict did not permit "a change in the standard of review, say, from deferential to de novo review," but instead was simply to be weighed as a factor in the abuse-of-discretion analysis

Holding that plan administrators are not required to accept opinions of claimant's treating physicians over the conflicting opinions of reviewing physicians

Holding that "a district court's review under the arbitrary and capricious standard is limited to the administrative record"

Holding that this Court will not generally consider an issue that was not raised before the district court, particularly when that issue is a factual one

Holding that "findings of fact in a bench trial based on written submissions are accorded the same deference as factual findings that are otherwise determined"

Holding that we had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 to review an ERISA remand order because it “was an effective denial of the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief”

Holding that, in evaluating whether a benefit denial was arbitrary and capricious, a court considers "whether [the defendant's] decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment."

Treating parties' motions for judgment on the administrative record as cross-motions for summary judgment

Finding plaintiff bears the burden of proving her entitlement to benefits.

Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely