Biglieri v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the plan administrator “cannot augment the administrative record with new facts bearing upon the application for benefits”
• stating that the plan administrator “cannot augment the administrative record with new facts bearing upon the application for benefits”
• providing that remand is an appropriate remedy in an ERISA case “unless the case is so clear cut that it would be unreasonable for the plan administrator to deny the application for benefits on any ground”
• noting that remand is the appropriate remedy in similar cases except where “the case is so clear cut that it would be unreasonable for the plan administrator to deny the application for benefits on any ground”
• concerning whether two different calculations for plan term “earnings” made determination of participants’ pension amount arbitrary and capricious
• framing the issue for decision as whether the defendant “had abused its discretion, or what amounts to the same thing, had acted arbitrarily and capriciously”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).