Boston, MA
Employee benefits Lawyer at Boston, MA
Practice Areas: Employee Benefits, Life Insurance ... +2 more
OUTCOME:
Compelling First Circuit case holding a grant of discretionary decision-making authority in an ERISA plan must be couched in terms that unambiguously indicate that the claims administrator has discreti ... on to construe the terms of the plan and determine whether benefits are due in particular instances. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 et seq.
OUTCOME:
As matter of first impression in the Second Circuit, district court’s order remanding issues to plan administrator was not final and no automatic appeal available.
OUTCOME:
Leading Circuit case nationwide holding remand to administrator was sufficient success on merits under Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co. to establish participant’s eligibility for recovery of at ... torney’s fees
OUTCOME:
Filed Amicus Brief for United Policyholders in support of Auto Flat where Supreme Judicial Court held acceptance of insurance company payment of insurance policy does not preclude a claim under consume ... r protection statute as a matter of course, and thus eliminating insurance company liability for multiple damages for bad-faith claims handling.
OUTCOME:
Holding that "satisfactory to us" fails to vest ERISA fiduciary with discretionary review rather than de novo determination by a Court.
OUTCOME:
Leading First Circuit case holding in a review of a denial of ERISA benefits, a structural conflict must be accorded weight, albeit not necessarily dispositive weight, in the standard-of-review equatio ... n. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, § 2 et seq.,
OUTCOME:
Case of first impression holding that fiduciary exception to attorney-client privilege applied to communications between insurance company personnel and in-house attorney
OUTCOME:
Holding that insurance company fiduciary offering misleading reasons to discredit the record review of its neurologist is "a paradigm of arbitrary and capricious decision-making."
OUTCOME:
Holding substantial evidence means actual evidence, not third-hand speculation about the possible cause of a claimant’s disability.
OUTCOME:
Holding ERISA administrator cannot simply ignore contrary evidence, or engage with only that evidence which supports his conclusion
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
