Gssime v. Pizzotto

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff's ERISA claim should have been deemed exhausted under section 2560.503-1( l ) and concluding that \substantial compliance\ is insufficient
• holding that plaintiffs ERISA claim should have been deemed exhausted under section 2560.503-l(i) and concluding that “substantial compliance” is insufficient
• holding that \an ERISA benefits claimant is not required to exhaust a claims procedure that was adopted only after a suit to recover benefits has been brought” but \expressing] no view as to whether 29 U.S.C. § 2560.-503-1(1-
• explaining that this Court “may entertain additional support that a party provides for a proposition presented below”
• “ERISA requires both that employee benefit plans have reasonable claims procedures in place, and that plan participants avail themselves of these procedures before turning to litigation.”
• “[A] dismissal without prejudice, absent some retention of jurisdiction, is a final decision....”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).