Matter of Robins v. Rosa

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “reliance on such limited information to deny the claim was arbitrary and capricious” where decisionmaker failed to include or explain all of the items in the administrative record, each of which “either buttressed [claimant’s] position or was neutral.”
• noting that “the Fund had ... discretionary authority under the July 16, 1990 amendments to the Agreement and Declaration of Trust”
• noting that decision unsupported by substantial evidence would be arbitrary and capricious
• noting that decision unsupported by substantial evidence would be arbitrary and capricious
• defining “substantial evidence” as “such evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the conclusion reached by the [decisionmaker]”
• remanding the claim to the administrator, without making any reference to the traditional elements of injunctive relief

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).