Gary Rittenhouse v. Unitedhealth Group Long Term Disability Insurance Plan

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court erred in applying de novo standard; proceeding to review the merits of the claim under an abuse-of- discretion standard
• holding that an ERISA plan “was justified in closing the administrative record” after conducting a full and fair review, when there is insufficient medical evidence supporting an award of benefits
• explaining that, where a decision is supported by the record, a court “may not substitute its own judgment” for that of the plan administrator
• noting that policy language stating that benefits would be paid when \we determine that proof . . . is satisfactory\ was ambiguous and did not confer discretion on plan administrator
• reviewing the decision for an abuse of discretion and applying this standard to evaluate proffered additional evidence
• this court conducts de novo review of the district court’s determination of the standard of review in ERISA cases

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).