Disability plans (BenefitsLink.com)Headlines re Disability plans, gathered by BenefitsLink.comA New Firestone Drill: MetLife v. Glenn- (Found June 24, 2008 ) Excerpt: "Hopefully, the Supreme Court's MetLife decision will turn out to be a welcome clarification of the Firestone case, even if it generates some new uncertainty. Firestone left open the question of how much a conflict of interest in the administrator should affect the level of a court's deference to the administrator's decision." (Pension & Benefits Blog)http://bnablog.bna.com/penben/2008/06/metlife-v-glenn.html Opinion Commentators' Reactions to the MetLife Decision- (Found June 24, 2008 ) Excerpt: "This post will be updated to include commentary on the decision in Metlife v. Glenn." (Health Plan Law blog by Attorney Roy F. Harmon III)http://healthplanlaw.com/?p=650 Guidance Overview MetLife Decision Handed Down - Supreme Court Affirms the Sixth Circuit- (Found June 24, 2008 ) Excerpt: "SCOTUSBLOG has announced that the Supreme Court has released the opinion in MetLife v. Glenn (06-923). The key issue before the Court in that case was whether the fact that a claim administrator of an ERISA plan also funds the plan benefits creates a 'conflict of interest' that must be weighed in a judicial review of the administrator's benefit determination." (Health Plan Law blog by Attorney Roy F. Harmon III)http://healthplanlaw.com/?p=649 Guidance Overview The Glenn ERISA Conflict of Interest Decision- (Found June 24, 2008 ) Excerpt: "In what I am sure will be an unsatisfactory opinion for many, the Supreme Court in Metlife v. Glenn, in a very fractured (5-1-1-2) decision has basically left the Firestone discretionary review standard alone in ERISA denial of benefit claims under Section 502(a)(1)(B)." (Workplace Prof Blog)http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof_blog/2008/06/holding-pat-and.html Supreme Court Upholds Ruling on Health Benefits- (Found June 24, 2008 ) Excerpt: "Until now, employees who felt wrongly deprived of benefits could expect little help in court unless they could show that their plan administrators had behaved in an arbitrary, capricious or unprincipled way. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the majority, eased that requirement, but stopped well short of setting out specific new rules for when and how employees could challenge adverse benefits decisions." (The New York Times; free registration required)http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/business/20bizcourt.html?partner=rssuserland&emc=rss... Guidance Overview SPD Posted on Intranet Site Not Properly Furnished to Participants, Court Finds- (Found June 24, 2008 ) Excerpt: "A recent unpublished decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reiterates the rule that employee benefit plan sponsors do not satisfy their ERISA duty to deliver summary plan descriptions (SPDs) and other plan documents to participants by simply posting those documents to an intranet site. Gertjejansen v. ________, No. 06-56329 (9th Cir., 2008)." (Deloitte via BenefitsLink.com)http://benefitslink.com/articles/guests/washbull080616a.html Guidance Overview Supreme Court's Reaffirmation of Firestone Has Ramifications for Benefits Claims Determinations- (Found June 24, 2008 ) Excerpt: "Companies and benefits plan administrators should note a Supreme Court decision that may inject more uncertainty into the claims determination process. Reaffirming the 1989 decision in Firestone Tire & Rubber Company v. Bruch, the Supreme Court yesterday found in Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Glenn that courts should apply a deferential review standard when reviewing claims determinations made under a plan that gives an administrator discretionary authority to make...http://www.ballardspahr.com/press/article.asp?ID=2097 Guidance Overview Supreme Court: Insurer's Conflict in Evaluating and Paying Claims Is a Factor That Reviewing Court Must Consider- (Found June 24, 2008 ) Excerpt: "This case may fundamentally change the landscape for claims decisionmakers, although it remains to be seen exactly how the circuit courts will apply the Supreme Court's ruling, which does not provide a detailed set of instructions or enunciate a precise standard for other courts to use when weighing the importance of a conflict. Conflicted decisionmakers may, however, want to heed the Court's suggestion that deferential review of benefit denials may be protected by taking...http://www.ebia.com/weeklyguest/19423/200807117ea012f9cee223b582025e44bc0df5a9/BNL080619 Guidance Overview Prudential Policy Language Insufficient to Trigger Abuse-of-Discretion Review- (Found June 24, 2008 ) Excerpt: "Language commonly used by Prudential in its disability policies is no stranger to dispute. The language says that a claimant is entitled to benefits 'when Prudential determines' that he or she is eligible. Prudential asserts that this language meets the Firestone test for vesting discretionary authority." (The Wood Law Firm)http://www.erisaontheweb.com/2008/06/articles/another-category/us-courts-of-appeals/pruden... Official Guidance Text of Opinion: Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. et al. v. Glenn (PDF)- (Found June 24, 2008 ) 34 pages. Excerpt: "The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) permits a person denied benefits under an employee benefit plan to challenge that denial in federal court. 88 Stat. 829, as amended, 29 U.S. C. 1001 et seq.; see 1132(a)(1)(B). Often the entity that administers the plan, such as an employer or an insurance company, both determines whether an employee is eligible for benefits and pays benefits out of its own pocket. We here decide that this dual role creates a...http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/06-923.pdf |