William C. Davis, Cross-Appellee v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, and Regal-Beloit Corporation 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.

• observing that the treating primary care physician acted “more as an advocate than a doctor rendering objective opinions”
• determining that, when the ERISA plan confers discretionary authority, deferential review and the arbitrary-and-capricious standard apply
• characterizing decisions about conflicting medical evidence as “question[s] of judgment that should be left to [the admin- istrator] under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard”
• refusing to credit a theoretical argument that in-house doctors have an inherent conflict of interest in ERISA cases
• “The judicial task here is not to determine if the administrator’s decision is correct, but only if it is reasonable.”
• not unreasonable for plan administrator to rely on records review rather than opinions of treating physicians

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).