Hugo Diaz v. Prudential Insurance Company of America

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “[a]ll plans require an administrator first to determine whether a participant is entitled to benefits before paying them”
• finding that de novo review applied where a plan administrator “is to make a judgment within the confines of pre-set standards,” rather than having “the latitude to shape the application, interpretation, and content of the rules in each case”
• stating' that “the surest way” for a plan to insulate its benefits denial from de novo review is to “includ[e] language that either mimics or is functionally equivalent” to the Herzber-ger language
• applying de novo standard of review to pension plan that required proof of a claim to be “satisfactory” to the administrator but failed to confer discretion on the administrator
• “[E]very plan requires submission of documentary proof, and the administrator is entitled to insist on [one form of proof over another].” (citations omitted)
• “In determining whether there has been substantial compliance, the purpose of 29 U.S.C. § 1133 and its implementing regulations, 29 C.F.R. 2560.503-1(f), serves as our guide”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).