Gloria Pagan v. Nynex Pension Plan and Nynex Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the plaintiff has “fail[ed] to explain how such an alleged conflict affected the reasonableness of the [Administrative] Committee’s decision”
• instructing that a decision is arbitrary and capricious if the decision was “without reason, unsupported by substantial evidence or erroneous as a matter of law”
• finding that “the decision to deny [plaintiff] long-term disability benefits was neither arbitrary nor capricious” where the pension plan had “rested its decision to deny [plaintiff] long-term benefits under the Pension Plan on [plaintiffs] failure to satisfy the plan’s requirement[s]”
• “Where it is necessary for a reviewing court to choose between two competing yet reasonable interpretations of a ... plan, this Court must accept that offered by the administrators.”
• application of the rule of contra proferentum is limited to those occasions in which this Court reviews an ERISA plan de novo
• “[A]pplication of the rule of contra proferentem is limited to those occasions in which this Court reviews an ERISA plan de novo.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).