Patrick J. O'Reilly v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Company

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that ERISA requires a “reasonable inquiry,” not a “full‐blown investigation” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• explaining that ERISA requires a “reasonable inquiry,” not a “full-blown investigation” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• explaining that ERISA requires a “reasonable inquiry” not a “full-blown investigation”
• explaining that plan administrator acted reasonably by seeking specialized input and distinguishing Quinn v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass’n, 161 F.3d 472, 476 (7th Cir. 1998) abrogated on other grounds by Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 560 U.S. 242 (2010)
• vocational expert supplied “quite detailed” reports that included “specific information about Mr. O’Reilly’s abilities and limitation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).