holding that plan administrator acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it failed to consider additional medical evidence submitted by plaintiff and that it was appropriate for the court to retroactively grant disability benefits without remanding the case where there are no factual determinations to be made and a remand would be futile
How later courts described this case
- holding that plan administrator acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it failed to consider additional medical evidence submitted by plaintiff and that it was appropriate for the court to retroactively grant disability benefits without remanding the case where there are no factual determinations to be made and a remand would be futile
- finding that “the Plan clearly gives the Plan Administrator authority to determine eligibility for disability benefits inasmuch as the Plan Administrator must ‘find that the Disability is likely to be permanent during the remainder of the Participant’s life’ ”
- recognizing that remand is proper where there are factual determinations that No. 12-3834 Javery v. Lucent Tech., Inc. Long Term Disability Plan Page 18 need to be made to determine whether a participant is entitled to benefits
- finding that the plan administrator acted arbitrarily and capriciously in failing to consider letters of attending physicians supporting the plaintiff's claim for disability benefits
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Although I agree with the majority’s position that the letters of Drs. Ahmed and Gold should have been considered, since they appear to shed light on plaintiffs condition while employed by IP, that evidence ought not be weighed by this court rather than the Plan Administrator. Unless a determination that plaintiff is still not entitled to benefits in light of the new evidence would be arbitrary and capricious, this court may not weigh the evidence itself and grant plaintiff benefits. See University Hosps. of Cleveland v. Emerson Elec. Co., 202 F.3d 839, 841 (6th Cir.2000) (discussing earlier remand in same case to Plan Administrator to reweigh evidence when some erroneous evidence was initially considered by Plan Administrator). It is not at all clear to me that a finding that the new evidence does not entitle plaintiff to benefits would be arbitrary and capricious.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.