Gilbertson v. Allied Signal, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that judicial deference to plan administrator’s decision not required on de novo review
• stating that ERISA and its regulations contemplate a “meaningful dialogue” between plan administrators and claimants
• arguing that McGarrah should be followed, if at all, only where \the claimant does not provide meaningful new evidence or raise significant new issues in the appeal\
• arguing that McGarrah should be followed, if at all, only where “the claimant does not provide meaningful new evidence or raise significant new issues in the appeal”
• holding that “when substantial violations of ERISA deadlines result in the claim’s being automatically deemed denied on review, the district must review the denial de novo, even if the plan administrator has discretionary authority to decide claims.”
• stating that a “hair-trigger rule” requiring de novo review of every case that involves a procedural violation “could inhibit collection of useful evidence and create perverse incentives for the parties”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).