Krolnik v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that “ ‘de novo review is a misleading phrase” in the context of ERISA, which requires “an independent decision rather than ‘review ”
• observing that “‘de novo review’ is a misleading phrase,” and suggesting that it be replaced by “‘independent decision’”
• observing that “‘de novo review’ is a misleading phrase,” and suggesting that it be replaced by “‘independent decision’”
• noting that de novo review does not require literal review of the administrative record, but rather “an independent decision rather than ‘review,’” with the district court being free to take evidence as needed
• declining to “look behind” parties’ agreement that de novo standard applied to review of plaintiff’s denial-of-benefits claim
• discussing how courts should limit review to the administrative record when review is deferential

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).