33 Cited authorities

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 217,065 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn
554 U.S. 105 (2008) Cited 3,102 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 2,400 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
Abatie v. Alta Health Life Ins. Co.
458 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2006) Cited 1,138 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that limiting the judicial record to that before the plan administrator is not appropriate in de novo cases
Marcus v. Califano
615 F.2d 23 (2d Cir. 1979) Cited 2,116 times
Holding that "the ALJ has discretion to evaluate the credibility of a claimant and to arrive at an independent judgment, in light of medical findings and other evidence, regarding the true extent of the pain alleged by the claimant"
Kearney v. Standard Insurance Company
175 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 1998) Cited 695 times
Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion, on de novo review, by limiting review to the evidence before the administrator
Jordan v. Northrop Grumman Welfare Benefit
370 F.3d 869 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 354 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that it was not improper to place the initial burden on the claimant where the insurance company informed her of the information it needed and advised her to call them if she had questions
Muniz v. Amec Construction Management, Inc.
623 F.3d 1290 (9th Cir. 2010) Cited 254 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that claimants bear the burden to prove entitlement to benefits at the district court
Saffon v. Wells Fargo & Co. Long Term Disability
511 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 253 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plan administrator must provide a participant with the reasons for a benefits denial at a time when the participant “had a fair chance to present evidence on this point,” and should not add a new reason in the administrator's final denial
Hawkins v. First U. Corp. Long-Term Dis. Plan
326 F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 2003) Cited 289 times
Holding that there is no "logical incompatibility between working full time and being disabled from working full time"
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 329,994 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 423 - Disability insurance benefit payments
42 U.S.C. § 423 Cited 68,757 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding of disability is prerequisite for eligibility and payment of DIB
Rule 52 - Findings and Conclusions by the Court; Judgment on Partial Findings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 Cited 26,475 times 100 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that a "reviewing court must give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge the witnesses' credibility"
Section 1132 - Civil enforcement
29 U.S.C. § 1132 Cited 26,363 times 171 Legal Analyses
Holding liable "[a]ny administrator" who fails to provide documents in a timely manner
Section 1001 - Congressional findings and declaration of policy
29 U.S.C. § 1001 Cited 20,562 times 59 Legal Analyses
Noting that ERISA was enacted “to protect ... employee benefit plans and their beneficiaries”

Espindola v. Standard Insurance Company et al

33 Cited authorities

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

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 limiting the judicial record to that before the plan administrator is not appropriate in de novo cases

Holding that "the ALJ has discretion to evaluate the credibility of a claimant and to arrive at an independent judgment, in light of medical findings and other evidence, regarding the true extent of the pain alleged by the claimant"

Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion, on de novo review, by limiting review to the evidence before the administrator

Holding that it was not improper to place the initial burden on the claimant where the insurance company informed her of the information it needed and advised her to call them if she had questions

Holding that claimants bear the burden to prove entitlement to benefits at the district court

Holding that a plan administrator must provide a participant with the reasons for a benefits denial at a time when the participant “had a fair chance to present evidence on this point,” and should not add a new reason in the administrator's final denial

Holding that there is no "logical incompatibility between working full time and being disabled from working full time"

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Finding of disability is prerequisite for eligibility and payment of DIB

Recognizing that a "reviewing court must give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge the witnesses' credibility"

Holding liable "[a]ny administrator" who fails to provide documents in a timely manner

Noting that ERISA was enacted “to protect ... employee benefit plans and their beneficiaries”