Robert E. Anderson v. Blue Cross/blue Shield of Alabama, Health Maintenance Group

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that where a plan gives a fiduciary the right to determine which services and supplies are medically necessary, and therefore payable, the arbitrary and capricious standard applies
• practically court must determine legally correct plan interpretation; then, if different from insurer’s, court must ascertain whether insurer arbitrary and capricious in using different interpretation
• “Practically, we first must determine the legally correct plan interpretation; then, if HMG has interpreted the contract differently, we must ascertain whether HMG was arbitrary and capricious in using a different interpretation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).