15 Cited authorities

Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council
467 U.S. 837 (1984) Cited 16,042 times 505 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress"
Firestone Tire Rubber Co. v. Bruch
489 U.S. 101 (1989) Cited 8,854 times 54 Legal Analyses
Holding that a denial of ERISA benefits "is to be reviewed under a de novo standard unless the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan"
Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn
554 U.S. 105 (2008) Cited 3,104 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
Caldwell v. Life Ins. Co. of North America
287 F.3d 1276 (10th Cir. 2002) Cited 343 times
Holding that where plan erroneously concluded that the claimant could do his prior occupation, remand was necessary for fact finding on whether the claimant could do any occupation
Fought v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America
379 F.3d 997 (10th Cir. 2004) Cited 285 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that plan administrators acting under an inherent conflict of interest have the burden of showing that their decision to deny disability benefits is supported by substantial evidence
Spangler v. Lockheed Martin Energy Sys., Inc.
313 F.3d 356 (6th Cir. 2002) Cited 164 times
Holding that a plan administrator's decision to deny benefits was arbitrary and capricious because it "cherry-picked" the claimant's file "in hopes of obtaining a favorable report from the vocational consultant as to [the claimant's] ability to work" and concluding that the administrator "should have provided [the reviewer] with all of the medical records relevant to the request for benefits"
Flinders v. Wrkfr. Stab. Plan
491 F.3d 1180 (10th Cir. 2007) Cited 129 times
Holding that "when reviewing a plan administrator's decision to deny benefits, we consider only the rationale asserted by the plan administrator in the administrative record," so as to prevent "ERISA claimants from being "sandbagged by after-the-fact plan interpretations devised for purposes of litigation."
Degrado v. Jefferson Pilot Financial Ins. Co.
451 F.3d 1161 (10th Cir. 2006) Cited 107 times
Holding that a remand to the plan administrator for a "full and fair review" should allow the plaintiff to submit additional material to the administrator
Welch v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America
382 F.3d 1078 (10th Cir. 2004) Cited 67 times
Finding a conflict of interest under similar circumstances
Section 423 - Disability insurance benefit payments
42 U.S.C. § 423 Cited 68,778 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding of disability is prerequisite for eligibility and payment of DIB
Section 1132 - Civil enforcement
29 U.S.C. § 1132 Cited 26,368 times 171 Legal Analyses
Holding liable "[a]ny administrator" who fails to provide documents in a timely manner
Section 15-1-1 - Interest rates - Contracted rate - Legal rate
Utah Code § 15-1-1 Cited 113 times 4 Legal Analyses
Providing that "[u]nless parties to a lawful contract specify a different rate of interest, the legal rate of interest for the loan or forbearance of any money, goods, or chose in action shall be 10% per annum"
Section 404.1527 - Evaluating opinion evidence for claims filed before March 27, 2017
20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 Cited 48,100 times
Holding that "[t]he ALJ improperly reduced the two-step evaluation procedure mandated by the Regulations into solely consideration of the remaining factors in the Regulations, such as 'supportability' and 'consistency' factors"

Krum v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company et al

15 Cited authorities

Holding that courts "must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress"

Holding that a denial of ERISA benefits "is to be reviewed under a de novo standard unless the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan"

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 where plan erroneously concluded that the claimant could do his prior occupation, remand was necessary for fact finding on whether the claimant could do any occupation

Holding that plan administrators acting under an inherent conflict of interest have the burden of showing that their decision to deny disability benefits is supported by substantial evidence

Holding that a remand to the plan administrator for a "full and fair review" should allow the plaintiff to submit additional material to the administrator

Finding a conflict of interest under similar circumstances

Finding of disability is prerequisite for eligibility and payment of DIB

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

Providing that "[u]nless parties to a lawful contract specify a different rate of interest, the legal rate of interest for the loan or forbearance of any money, goods, or chose in action shall be 10% per annum"

Holding that "[t]he ALJ improperly reduced the two-step evaluation procedure mandated by the Regulations into solely consideration of the remaining factors in the Regulations, such as 'supportability' and 'consistency' factors"