United States v. Pinkham

How courts have described this case

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

• arguing that the health insurer abused its discretion by basing its reimbursement decision on undisclosed administrative polices that lacked substantive support
• stating where “an administrator evaluates facts to determine the plan’s application in a particular case . . . the substantial evidence test governs our review” (ellipses in original) (quoting Donaho v. FMC Corp., 74 F.3d 894, 899 n.9 (8th Cir. 1996))
• “Traditionally, a party to a breached contract has a judicially cognizable injury for standing purposes because the other party’s breach devalues the services for which the plaintiff contracted and deprives them of the benefit of their bargain.”
• “[P]lan participants are injured . . . when a plan administrator fails to pay a healthcare provider in accordance with the terms of their benefits plan . . . even if the benefits are assigned to a third party.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).