Thompson v. Crews

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court had improperly failed to consider the context in which the regulation was passed when determining its unambiguous meaning
• holding that failure to comply with any part of the regulations triggers de novo review, unless the irregularities were inadvertent and harmless
• holding that administrators must “strictly adhere to the regulation[s] to obtain the more deferential arbitrary and capricious standard of review” and that “substantially comply[ing]” is insufficient
• holding that “a plan’s failure to comply with the Department of Labor’s claims-procedure regulation . . . will result in that claim being reviewed de novo in federal court”
• holding that the “substantial compliance” standard is incompatible with the revised regulations
• noting that, in reviewing claim denials, “district courts typically limit their review to the administrative record before the plan at the time it denied the claim”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).