# Brent Boyd v. Bert Bell/pete Rozelle Nfl Players Retirement Plan Nfl Player Supplemental Disability Plan the Disability Board

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · June 13, 2005 · 410 F.3d 1173

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9498071

## Case

- **Full name:** Brent BOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BERT BELL/PETE ROZELLE NFL PLAYERS RETIREMENT PLAN; NFL Player Supplemental Disability Plan; The Disability Board, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 13, 2005
- **Citations:** 410 F.3d 1173; 35 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1065; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 11057; 2005 WL 1384359
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wardlaw
- **Judges:** Beezer, Hall, Wardlaw
- **Cited by:** 86 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/9498071

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that ERISA fiduciary decisions in claim for disability benefits were reviewed under deferential standard
- holding that fiduciaries of benefit plans are “obligated to guard the assets of the Plan from improper claims”
- holding that 24 an “ERISA administrator abuses its discretion [if it] renders a decision without explanation”

## Opinion text

WARDLAW, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and concurring in the result:
I part company with the majority’s inclusion of the dictum on pages 7026-27, *1180 where the opinion states: “An ERISA administrator’s exercise of its discretion to adjudicate claims is not a mere exercise in expert poll-taking. We hold that a mere tally of experts is insufficient to demonstrate that an ERISA fiduciary has abused its discretion.” The opinion reaches the correct result solely because the standard of review is “significantly deferential” to the Board; we may not hold the Board’s factfinding to be erroneous unless the “entire evidence” leaves us with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Concrete Pipe & Prods., Inc. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust, 508 U.S. 602 , 113 S.Ct. 2264 , 124 L.Ed.2d 539 (1993). Moreover, “that the plan administrator’s decision is directly contrary to some evidence in the record does not show that the decision is clearly erroneous.” Snow v. Standard Ins. Co., 87 F.3d 327, 331 (9th Cir.1996). My conclusion that the Board did not abuse its discretion under this standard is based on the fact that Boyd’s head injury was not contemporaneously diagnosed, and therefore it was not unreasonable for the Board to rely upon Dr. Gordon’s opinion that Boyd’s head injury did not arise from his football activities. Because the opinion’s conclusion is based on the deferential nature of the abuse of discretion standard of review applicable to this case, both the tone and substance of the quoted sentences are unnecessary.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9498071. Public record. Not legal advice.