Eleventh Circuit· 8/29/2007

Oliver v. Coca Cola Co.

Citations

497 F.3d 1181
41 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1856
2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20628

How courts have described this case

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

stating that a plan administrator may deny a claim “on the basis of conflicting, reliable evidence”
holding it was arbitrary and capricious for the plan administrator to rely on favorable evidence while ignoring contrary objective medical evidence in the record
holding the plan administrator acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it “simply ignored relevant medical evidence in order to arrive at the conclusion it desired”
explaining that chronic pain syndrome is “not subject to diagnosis by ‘objective’ laboratory tests”
concluding the third-party administrative services provider was not a proper defendant
describing the two plan requirements and noting that “[no] provision of the Plan requires ‘objective evidence’ of disability”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Birch, Black, Presnell

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

36 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

22 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Oliver v. Coca Cola Co.

5 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.