Free Trial / Sign Up Products / Prices / Samples About Us / Contact FAQs Home
Latest employment law cases  
Summaries and links to full text

LawMemo - First in Employment Law

Emailed directly to you
and online all the time
Latest Cases Key Word Search Law Firm Directory Arbitrator Directory Law School Directory Legal Resources / Memos
Employment Law Memo
Arbitration Law Memo
NLRB Law Memo
Employment Law Blog
Arbitration Law Blog
Employment Law 101
Articles
Supreme Court Cases
EEOC Info
NLRB Info

LawMemo Employment Law Blog 
All Archives    |    All Archives By Topic 
Also read LawMemo Arbitration Blog


« Sexual orientation discrimination outlawed in Washington | Main | EEOC discrimination charges decline in 2005 »

Standard of review in ERISA benefits denial
February 07, 2006 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo

What is the standard of review for a court reviewing an ERISA-regulated benefit plan' denial of benefits?

  • "abuse of discretion"?
  • "de novo"?

The default rule is that review is "de novo."

The review is "abuse of discretion" if the plan gives the administrator discretionary authority to determine eligibility or benefits.

Even then, the review will be "de novo" if the plan is operating under a conflict of interest that reaches a level that the court thinks might have actually made a difference.

The 9th Circuit has ordered an en banc review of such a case and has withdrawn the earlier decision of a three-judge panel. The order: Abatie v. Alta Health & Life (9th Cir 02/06/2006).

Karla Abatie sued the administrator of an ERISA-regulated benefit plan for denying her claim for life insurance benefits. The trial court held that "abuse of discretion" was the standard of review, and denied Abatie's claim.

A 9th Circuit panel affirmed (2-1). Abatie v. Alta Health & Life (9th Cir 08/31/2005) (this opinion has been withdrawn, but you can still read it).

The DISSENT argued that "de novo" was the correct standard of review on the grounds that the administrator had a conflict of interests, and violated ERISA's procedural protections by ignoring a probative deposition and by adding an additional reason late in the internal appeals process.

For more, see my original source Workplace Prof Blog: Ninth Circuit Grants En Banc Review to Determine Proper Standard of Review in Denial of Benefits Case.

LawMemo.Com


EEOC | NLRB | Supreme CourtEmployment Law BlogArbitration Blog | Employment Law 101

 
Google
 
Web www.LawMemo.com 
This form will search the LawMemo web site. 
It does not include Advanced Search.