William M. Shaw v. Connecticut General Life

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the question of whether a claimant is “totally disabled” involves both considerations
• “Having created a particular procedure, it seems evident to us that the parties ... must follow that procedure in order to create enforceable amendments”
• invalidating a purported amendment to an ERISA-covered disability plan because of lack of compliance with plan amendment procedures without any discussion of bad faith, active concealment, or detrimental reliance
• “[T]he question of whether [a claimant] is ‘totally disabled’ is a mixed one, involving issues of both plan interpretation and fact.”
• “our Court has already declined to draw a distinction between law and fact in choosing the standard of review for denial of ERISA benefits.”
• “As a rule, de novo review permits the parties to put before the district court evidence beyond that which was presented to the administrator at the time the denial decision was made”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).