Call Henry, Inc. 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.

• explaining that a de novo standard of review applies when procedural irregularities are present in the administrative process the claimant can show prejudice
• noting that discretionary authority “must be expressly provided for, and notice of that reservation must appropriately be given to Plan participants” for the deferential standard to apply
• finding that “[plan administrator] decides which health care services .., are medically necessary” clause did not grant discretionary authority and “merely restates the obvious: that no benefits will be paid if [the administrator] determines they are not due”
• “motions for summary judgment in this context are nothing more than vehicles for teeing up ERISA cases for decision on the administrative record.”
• “[A] grant of discretionary decisionmaking authority in an ERISA plan must be couched in terms that unambiguously indicate that the claims administrator has discretion to construe the terms of the plan and determine whether benefits are due in particular instances.”
• “The default rule favors de novo review....”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).