Delta Family-Care Disability and Survivorship Plan v. Harold Marshall

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling that a plan administrator does not abuse its discretion in finding employee not disabled where record reflects conflicting medical opinions
• explaining that a decision to deny benefits need not be only sensible one, as long as reasoned explanation, based on evidence, is offered for outcome
• explaining that a plan administrator’s decision to deny benefits must stand if it is reasonable, i.e., supported by relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the decision
• rejecting lower court’s finding “that the Plan ‘disregarded’ the reports of [the claimant’s] treating physicians” where “the Plan’s final decision letter clearly demonstrates that the Plan did consider those reports”
• decision to terminate benefits must stand if it is supported by substantial evidence, i.e., it is reasonable
• plan administrator’s denial of benefits was supported by, inter aha, surveillance report of claimant driving car and walking to mailbox without cane

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).