Crosby v. Louisiana Health Service and Indem. Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that our restrictive position on adding to the administrative record in ERISA cases does not prohibit a discovery request for information regarding the existence and extent of a conflict
• stating that plan participants are not entitled to supplement the court record with new evidence demonstrating that they are entitled to benefits
• stating that relevance is defined by whether a request is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
• applying † She also raised a claim under Texas state law for invasion of privacy. The district court dismissed that claim under Rule 12(b)(6
• \[O]ur review of an ERISA benefits determination is essentially analogous to a review of an administrative agency decision....\
• “Generally, the scope of discovery is broad and permits the discovery of ‘any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).