Hogan-Cross v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that Glenn “rejected special procedural or evidentiary rules and . . . thus abrogated the limitations on discovery unique to ERISA cases . . . .”
• finding that “[e]vidence of high rates of benefit denials or terminations reasonably could lead to further inquiry as to the reasons for those actions, which might prove either benign or malignant”
• reasoning that the defendant’s argument that “discovery is inappropriate ... because ‘there is no evidence in the administrative record of any actual conflict,’ a dubious proposition to begin with before Glenn, is misguided.’ ”
• “The bases for and amounts of compensation paid to employees and outside consultants involved in plaintiffs benefit termination itself could prove relevant to plaintiffs claim. Certainly it could lead to other relevant evidence.”
• “The ultimate question in these cases is whether the decision in question was arbitrary and capricious. In making that determination, the existence, nature, extent, and effect of any conflict of interest are relevant considerations.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).