Cliff Connors v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “findings of fact in a bench trial based on written submissions are accorded the same deference as factual findings that are otherwise determined”
• holding, in the ERISA context, that a district court conducting de novo review of the administrative record was “not required to accept . . . as credible” complaints made by a plan participant
• explaining that “while a district court reviewing an administrator’s decision de novo is not required to accept [subjective] complaints as credible, it cannot dismiss complaints of pain as legally insufficient evidence of disability.”
• vacating district court’s denial of disability benefits and remanding where court made two clear errors of fact and one error of law
• noting that if “the District Court [had] recognized that Dr. Reddy was Connors’s regular physician, it would no doubt have accorded his opinion greater weight” given that defendant’s physicians either only examined Connors once or never at all
• vacating district court’s decision regarding benefit eligibility and remanding for findings on attorney’s fees

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).