Brenda Elliott v. Sara Lee Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the administrator “was under no obligation to secure additional vocational evidence” and that the plaintiff “was free to supplement the record” with additional vocational information
• recognizing that Fourth Circuit has held no abuse of discretion in plan fiduciary’s denial of disability pension benefits where “conflicting medical reports” were presented
• holding that the administrator “was under no obligation to secure additional vocational evidence” and that the plaintiff “was free to supplement the record” with additional vocational information
• ruling that without any indication that disability standards are analogous, an ERISA plan administrator had no obligation to weigh a SSA determination more favorably than other evidence
• holding that the district court properly refused beneficiary’s request for the court to consider affidavit of a vocational consultant hired by the beneficiary, when the beneficiary failed to submit affidavit to plan Appeals Committee despite having had an opportunity to do so
• holding a plan administrator “is not required... to secure specific [evidence], especially where the record already contains ample and reliable medical documentation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).