Ali-Hasan v. St. Peter's Health Partners Med. Assoc., P.C.

How courts have described this case

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

• reversing the denial of benefits under an arbitrary and capricious standard when, after “reviewing the plain language of the Plan,” the court found that the administrator “exceeded its power to interpret the Plan, and instead has effectively rewritten it”
• \[T]here is undeniable logic in the view that a plan administrator should forfeit deferential review by failing to exercise its discretion in a timely manner.\
• “[T]here is undeniable logic in the view that a plan administrator should forfeit deferential review by failing to exercise its discretion in a timely manner.”
• “we need not decide ... whether any failure to timely decide [plaintiffs administrative appeal] should trigger a less deferential standard of review”
• deference contemplated by arbitrary-or-capricious review “tempered” by alertness to conflicts of interest when the administrator also funds the plan and by the canon of interpreting insurance contracts against an insurer
• “[T]o the extent that the Plan’s language is susceptible of more than one interpretation, we will apply the ‘rule of contra proferentum’ and construe any ambiguities against Defendants/Appellees as the drafting parties.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).