Federal Case

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding an abuse of discretion when the plan administrator’s interpretation “controvert[ed] the plain language of the [p]lan.”
• \Employee must show that the employer made a conscious decision to interfere with the employee's attainment of pension eligibility or additional benefits.\
• ERISA does not impose an obligation upon employers to provide benefits, but is concerned with the proper execution of plans once established
• “[E]mployee must show that the employer made a conscious decision to interfere with the employee’s attainment of pension eligibility or additional benefits.”
• administrator's discretionary interpretation of plan \may not controvert the plain language of the [plan] document\
• “We must uphold a plan interpretation even if we disagree with it, so long as the administrator’s interpretation is rationally related to a valid plan purpose and is not contrary to the plain language of the plan.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).