Connie M. Miller v. Metropolitan 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 a plaintiff in an ERISA case bears the burden of proving continuing disability and that such burden continues to lie with the employee after benefits are initially conferred
• observing that the stress of the accident was “directly related” to the heart attack
• finding that the insurer did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in declining to further investigate a claim when the claimant failed to provide “satisfactory proof” as required by the policy
• finding that the burden of proof did not shift to the defendant where a benefits plan required the plaintiff to “continue to supply on demand proof of continuing disability to the satisfaction of the insurance company.”
• affirming denial of benefits based on claimant’s refusal to cooperate with plan administrator’s requests for documentation
• granting discretion “on the basis of medical evidence satisfactory to the Insurance Company”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).