Phyllis A. Kent v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[generally, the courts have recognized in ERISA cases that procedural violations entail substantive remedies only when some useful purpose would be served.”
• holding that plan administrator substantially complied with ERISA’s procedural requirements despite, inter alia, an untimely denial
• holding that the alleged defects in the claim procedures did not warrant reversal of the district court’s decision because, among other things, remand would represent a “useless formality” when much of the objective medical evidence supported the conclusion that the claimant was not disabled
• holding that the alleged defects in the claim procedures did not warrant reversal of the district court’s decision because, among other things, remand would represent a “useless formality” when much of the objective medical evidence supported the conclusion that the claimant was not disabled
• holding remand was unnecessary and represented a “useless formality” when the evidence did not show the fiduciary’s decision was an abuse of discretion
• finding that the plan administrator substantially complied with the notice requirements of ERISA despite the fact that only the second of two denial letters cited the relevant plan language relating to disability

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).