Blankenship v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an insur- ance company was entitled to credit “advice of the independent doctors over the opinions of [the insured’s] doctors”
• explaining that we only “determine whether ‘reasonable’ grounds supported” the decision where we have concluded that it was de novo wrong but the administrator has discretion
• advocating for “a new procedural rule” for the disposition of ERISA cases
• “[First, ajpply the de novo standard to determine whether the claim administrator’s benefits-denial decision is ‘wrong1 ...; if it is not, then end the inquiry and affirm the decision.”
• “If there is no conflict, then end the inquiry and affirm the decision.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).