![]() Rather, Bradley only deals with situations where a conflict exists. ![]() Co., 892 F.2d at 1182 (examining the conflict of interest under Firestone to determine whether the insurance company had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying benefits, but stating that “here is no real conflict of interest where the fiduciary’s discretionary decision is to pay benefits.”). Retirement Income Plan, 925 F.2d at 1302-03 (finding the standard of review de novo appropriate even though ERISA plan language required deferential review) Hickey v. Our reading of Bradley is that it does not require any particular interpretation of the plan document where there is no conflict of interest. This interpretation, however, reads more into Bradley than is warranted. That is, because no conflict of interest existed in this case, we are to make an initial independent evaluation of the facts, like we would for ordinary breach of contract actions. In this case, the district court concluded that it was bound by the administrative decision and interpreted Bradley as requiring this court to review ERISA benefits decisions de novo in accordance with Firestone. Topics or in denying an appeal before the EEOC that would hinder the EEOC’s ability to obtain complete and satisfactory relief for the employee.” - U.S. File Activationxml Autocom Version 2122 Keygen ((NEW)) □įile Activationxml Autocom Version 2122 Keygen
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |