# Williams v. International Paper Co.

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · September 27, 2000 · 227 F.3d 706

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6987130

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert E. WILLIAMS v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 27, 2000
- **Citations:** 227 F.3d 706; 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 23810; 2000 WL 1396608
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Norris
- **Judges:** Clay, Keith, Norris
- **Cited by:** 288 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6987130

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 f…
- 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
- recognizing that remand is proper where there are factual determinations that yet need to be made in order to determine whether a participant is entitled to benefits

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6987130. Public record. Not legal advice.