Durakovic v. BUILDING SERVICE 32 BJ PENSION FUND

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that funds maintained under the Taft-Hartley Act had a conflict of interest that needed to be weighed under Glenn
• holding that funds’ reasoning was inappropriately “one‐sided” where funds “summarily dismissed” a report by the claimant’s vocational expert, “which was vastly more detailed and particularized than the report on which the Funds relied”
• holding that a funds’ determination was not arbitrary and capricious where the funds’ determination was supported by the reports of two independent doctors, even in light of contrary findings by five treating physicians and the Social Security Administration
• noting that the Second Circuit had more heavily weighted a conflict where the administrator \behaved deceptively toward the benefits applicant\
• explaining that “[n]o weight is given to a conflict in the absence of any evidence that the conflict actually affected the administrator’s decision.”
• assigning weight to a conflict because of the “decisionmaking deficiencies” evident in the defendants’ denial of the plaintiffs claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).