ERISA Standard of Review

Back to Insights

Court finds for insured in absence of examination

An insurer’s choice to rely on file reviews in place of examinations can be critical to the outcome of litigation, a lesson taught by Tolstedt v. Standard Ins. Co., 2013 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 134946 (D.Mont. June 24, 2013). There, the plaintiff, Michael Tolstedt, a trial lawyer from Billings, Mont., began taking prescription medication for depression on Sept. […]

A federal judge in Alabama

A federal judge in Alabama (Karen Bowdre) recently issued a critical ruling in a disability case involving fibromyalgia. The court made numerous keen observations about the review process and the nature of fibromyalgia, carefully analyzing all of the issues presented. Here is our discussion and analysis of the court’s ruling: Williams v. United of Omaha […]

Federal court rejects remand request

Disability claims involving chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia are difficult to assess because the symptoms are self-reported and cannot be objectively verified. However, in Schnoor v. Walgreen Income Protection Plan, 2013 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 114435 (W.D.Mich. Aug. 14, 2013), the court had no difficulty seeing through a deficient claim evaluation, despite the broad deference given to the […]

Warner v. Unum Life Ins.Co. of America, 2013 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 105067 (N.D.Ill. July 26, 2013)(Issue: Discovery)

Click Here Despite the applicability of the arbitrary and capricious standard of review, the court granted in substantial part the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. Although the court acknowledged that in the Seventh Circuit, the scope of a court’s review of an ERISA benefit denial under a deferential standard of review is limited to the “administrative” […]

Court Ruling Expands Scope of ERISA Discovery

A decision by a federal court has expanded the scope of discovery available in ERISA cases. In Williams v. FedEx Corp. Servs., Inc., No. 19 C 5706, 2021 WL 2854244 (N.D. Ill. July 8, 2021), the plaintiff sought to depose a plan administrator, but the defendant argued that the administrator was not a proper deponent because he was not involved in the initial denial of the claim. The court ultimately allowed the deposition, ruling that the administrator had information relevant to the plaintiff’s claim.