Gannon v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that a claims administrator “reasonably relied” on evidence only after confirming that the evidence was “credible” and “reliable”
• emphasizing that “ERISA does not require plan administrators or reviewing courts to accord special deference to the opinions of treating physicians”
• noting that “the existence of contrary evidence does not, in itself, make the administrator’s decision arbitrary”
• explaining that it is not “for a court to determine precisely how much weight [an insurer] should have accorded [one physician’s opinion] in its overall decision”
• stating that a “nonexamining physician’s review of a claimant’s file [is] reliable medical evidence”
• upholding determination that claimant was “capable of performing sedentary work” because she could “change positions every five min utes” to remedy discomfort from sitting for extensive periods of time

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).