Saffon v. Wells Fargo & Co. Long Term Disability Plan

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that when a plan administrator “tacks on a new reason for denying benefits in a final decision,” it violates ERISA because the claimant is unable to respond to the new rationale
• stating that “individual reactions to pain are subjective and not easily determined by reference to objective measurements”
• noting that in some instances parties cannot be required to offer objective evidence of subjective pain
• holding that a plan administrator must provide a participant with the reasons for a benefits denial at a time when the participant “had a fair chance to present evidence on this point,” and should not add a new reason in the administrator’s final denial
• holding that a plan administrator must provide a participant with the reasons for a benefits denial at a time when the participant “had a fair chance to present evidence on this point,” and should not add a new reason in the administrator’s final denial
• explaining that courts should discount deference based on conflicts of interest “to overcome the ‘serious . . . danger of conflicted plan decision- making’ ” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).