Federal Courts Struggle with Supreme Court Refusal to Promulgate a Bright-Line Rule for Evaluating ERISA Plan Administrators' Conflicts of Interest

By Speiser, Shoshana | American Journal of Law & Medicine, January 1, 2010 | Go to article overview

Federal Courts Struggle with Supreme Court Refusal to Promulgate a Bright-Line Rule for Evaluating ERISA Plan Administrators' Conflicts of Interest


Speiser, Shoshana, American Journal of Law & Medicine


Federal Courts Struggle with Supreme Court Refusal to Promulgate a Bright-Line Rule for Evaluating ERISA Plan Administrators' Conflicts of Interest- Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Glenn.1 - The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") regulates employer-provided pension and welfare benefit plans to ensure that participants receive their promised benefits.2 Under an ERISA-governed employee benefit plan, a single entity may act in a "dual role" as both an insurer and the payer of benefit claims.3 ERISA requires administrators to "provide a full and fair review of claim denials."4 In the event of a benefit denial, beneficiaries may seek judicial review after exhausting their administrative remedies.5 Where ERISA "grant[s] the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits," courts must review denials deferentially.6

In Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Glenn, after being diagnosed with a heart condition, Respondent Wanda Glenn ("Glenn") applied for disability benefits from Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MetLife").7 MetLife served as both the administrator and insurer of Glenn's insurance plan under ERISA.8 In 2000, MetLife determined that Glenn qualified for 24 months of disability and in 2002 an Administrative Law Judge determined that she could not "perform[] any job[] for which she could qualify existing in significant numbers in the national economy."9 Accordingly, the Social Security Administration ("SSA") awarded Glenn permanent disability payments.10 MetLife, however, denied Glenn's claim for continued benefits under a similar standard requiring Glenn's condition prevent her from both performing her own job and "the material duties of any gainful occupation for which she was reasonably qualified [,]" finding her "capable of performing full time sedentary work."11

Following the exhaustion of her administrative remedies, Glenn filed suit in the Southern District of Ohio, as permitted under ERISA.12 The federal district court denied Glenn relief.13 However, on appeal the Sixth Circuit, under a deferential standard of review as prescribed by ERISA, 14 reversed the lower court's holding.15 In finding an abuse of discretion, the Sixth Circuit specifically determined that MetLife 's position as both determining eligibility for and providing benefits presented a conflict of interest, but treated it only as a "relevant factor."16 The Sixth Circuit also considered the following factors: (l) the SSA's contradictory conclusion that Glenn could not work; (2) MetLife's focus upon a single physician report which favored their position while ignoring other, more detailed reports; (3) MetLife neglecting to provide their experts with all relevant physician reports; and (4) MetLife's disregard of evidence demonstrating the aggravation of Glenn's condition by stress.17

MetLife sought and obtained certiorari regarding the existence of conflict of interest for dual-role plan administrators. 18 The United States Supreme Court also considered the Solicitor General's request to consider "how any such a conflict should be taken into account" and affirmed.19 In its holding, the Court applied the principles from Firestone Tire Ö Rubber Co. v. Bruch which similarly entailed an entity that both evaluated claim validity and paid the benefits.20 Specifically, benefit denials in this context demand a deferential standard of review21 and "if a benefit plan gives discretion to an administrator... who is operating under a conflict of interest, that conflict must be weighed as a factor in determining whether there is an abuse of discretion."22

The United States Supreme Court held that a conflict of interest exists when the same entity serves as an ERISA plan administrator and payer of benefits.23 However, this conflict of interest serves as only one factor in the deferential review of whether the denial of the claim constituted an abuse of discretion. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Federal Courts Struggle with Supreme Court Refusal to Promulgate a Bright-Line Rule for Evaluating ERISA Plan Administrators' Conflicts of Interest
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.