State of Iowa v. Reginald Demorrow Little

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that violations of ERISA deadlines would be excused if there was “ongoing, good faith exchange of information” between the plan administrator and the claimant
• holding that an administrator failed to exercise its discretion when it did not make a benefits decision within the 60 days specified by the terms of the plan and the applicable regulation, so that the ultimate decision rendered was “unde- serving of deference”
• explaining that this rule “parallels the general rule that an agency’s order must be upheld, if 7 at all, on the same basis articulated in the order by the agency itself, not a subsequent rationale 8 articulated by counsel.”
• noting in dicta that “inconsequential violations of the deadlines ... would not entitle the claimant to de novo review ... in the context of an ongoing, good faith exchange of information between the administrator and the claimant.”
• “Decisions made outside the boundaries of conferred discretion are not exercises of discretion, the substance of the decisions notwithstanding.”
• “Decisions made outside the boundaries of conferred discretion are not exercises of discretion, the substance of the decisions notwithstanding.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).