Hale v. Elkhorn Coal Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining a report was “conclusory and not well reasoned” that questioned “subjective complaints of pain without the benefit of a physical examination” when the plan “clearly allowed for a physical examination.”
• “File reviews by psychiatrists are viewed as particularly suspect since psychiatrists usually treat subjective, instead of objective, symptoms.”
• “[Plaintiff] challenges the defendant’s denial of his claim for long-term disability [] benefits under an employee benefit program sponsored by his former employer[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).