Lafleur v. Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that even substantial non-compliance with ERISA procedural regulations did not warrant modifying arbitrary and capricious standard of review
• holding that plan administrator failed to comply with ERISA’s procedural requirements
• holding that the plan “did not substantially comply with the procedural requirements of ERISA because . . . it raised new grounds for denial in the federal courts that were not raised at the administrative level,” among other reasons
• concluding a remand to the plan administrator is “usually the appropriate remedy”
• concluding a remand to the plan administrator is “usually the appropriate remedy”
• concluding a remand to the plan administrator is “usually the appropriate remedy”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).