Attorney Nathaniel Wade Bax's Legal Cases

Employee benefits

Davis v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.

N/A

OUTCOME: Summary judgment was entered in favor of the claimant.

The court found that the record yielded, at best, a mere scintilla of evidence to support the decision that the claim should be denied. The administrator's finding that the claimant was not entitled to ... a waiver of life insurance premiums was not reasonable or the result of a deliberate, principled reasoning process, and it was not supported by substantial evidence. There was, however, substantial evidence in the record that the claimant was disabled according to the terms of the plan, the medical records, and applicable law.

Employee benefits

Lance v. Ret. Plan of Int'l Paper Co.

N/A

OUTCOME: The judgment of the district court was affirmed.

The appellate court rejected the employee's conflict of interest assertion as the plan at issue did not operate under a conflict of interest as contemplated by Glenn. The appellate court found that it ... was more than evident that the other Booth factors, which were properly applied by the district court, weighed in favor of the retirement plan. Under the plain language of the plan, the employee would only have been entitled to disability retirement benefits if suffering from a medically determinable, permanent, total disability rendering him incapable of performing any occupation for which he was qualified. Even under the assessment of a certain physician, upon whose diagnosis the employee depended, the employee's condition could have been considered only partially disabling. Importantly, the physician did not believe that the employee's condition was likely to be permanent, as required to receive benefits under the terms of the plan. Considering the physician's opinion and the opinions of the four physicians it commissioned to review the employee's claim, the plan administrator's denial of benefits was entirely reasonable.

Nathaniel Wade Bax's Legal Cases (2)

Davis v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.

Lance v. Ret. Plan of Int'l Paper Co.