Holland v. International Paper Co. Retirement Plan

How courts have described this case

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

• considering conflict of interest as part of assessment of evidentiary basis for denial of benefits
• finding that where claimant “adduced no evidence . . . that [administrator’s structural] conflict affected its benefits decision or that it had a history of abuses of discretion,” any conflict was insignificant in abuse of discretion analysis
• finding conflict of interest where plan administrator was senior vice president of company funding the plan
• describing standard as requiring merely “evidence . . . that clearly supports the basis for its denial” (quotation omitted)
• “Ample record evidence supported the Plan Administrator’s denial of benefits without the necessity of obtaining a vocational rehabilitation expert.”
• “A plan administrator abuses its discretion where the decision is not based on 22 evidence, even if disputable, that clearly supports the basis for its denial.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).