M & L Building Corp. v. Housing Authority

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “[t]here are reasons to think” that a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment is not “the appropriate vehicle for resolution of an ERISA benefits claim” because of the conflict between the de novo and Rule 56 standards
• rejecting the administrator's reliance on the physician's failure to complete portions of the forms because other parts of the record indicated that the physician \unambiguously concluded that [the claimant] was incapable of working and that his condition would never improve\
• “[W]here the court's review is for abuse of discretion, summary 27 judgment is a proper ‘conduit to bring the legal question before the district court.’”
• “[W]hen applying the de novo standard in an ERISA benefits case, a trial on the administrative record, which permits the court to make factual findings, evaluate credibility, and weigh evidence, appears to be the appropriate proceeding to resolve the dispute.”
• “Social Security disability awards are evidence of disability.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).