Opinion

Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama v. King

  • 532 So. 2d 1045
  • 1988 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 298
  • 1988 WL 94996
Court
Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
Filed
Sep 14, 1988
Status
Published
Author
Holmes
On the bench
Bradley, Ingram, Holmes
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 26.6%

"absent the existence of a United States Supreme Court ruling on a federal question, the decision of a federal appellate court is binding on our state courts[;] ... [h]owever, if federal decisions are in conflict, we may follow and apply the better reasoned decision"

How later courts described this case

  • "absent the existence of a United States Supreme Court ruling on a federal question, the decision of a federal appellate court is binding on our state courts[;] ... [h]owever, if federal decisions are in conflict, we may follow and apply the better reasoned decision"

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

HOLMES, Judge

(concurring specially.)

I concur with the result reached by the majority in this case. I would further note that, although the arbitrary or capricious standard is a narrow standard of review, we will not allow a determination to stand if it is without any reasonable cause, in disregard of the evidence, or with no substantial evidence to support it. See Colonial Fast Freight Lines, Inc. v. United States, 443 F.Supp. 72 (N.D.Ala.1977); East Texas Motor Freight Lines v. United States, 96 F.Supp. 424 (N.D.Tex.1951); Straub v. Department of Public Welfare, 31 Wash.2d 707 , 198 P.2d 817 (1948). However, an action is not arbitrary or capricious when exercised honestly and upon due consideration. Further, where there is room for two different opinions, we will not reverse if the evidence supports the conclusion reached. See Waters v. City and County of Montgomery Personnel Board, 507 So.2d 951 (Ala.Civ.App.1986); Straub, 31 Wash.2d 707 , 198 P.2d 817 . This is so even though we may have reached a different result, as we may not substitute our judgment for that of the agency. LeFebre v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 747 F.2d 197 (11th Cir.1984).

Stated differently, there was in this instance substantial evidence to support the initial determination. As the majority stated, there was evidence from which Blue Cross could have reasonably concluded that coverage should be denied and its action was, therefore, not arbitrary or capricious.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.