Failure to Apply Plan Terms as an Abuse of Discretion in ERISA Long-Term Disability Cases

This one is for serious ERISA nerds.

Whatever brought you here, I hope we can make a difference.

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) provides a comprehensive framework governing employer-sponsored benefit plans, including long-term disability (LTD) insurance. Initially intended to address issues within pension plans, ERISA's scope extends to protect a wide array of employee benefits. For individuals seeking LTD benefits through plans offered by private employers, ERISA establishes the legal rules and procedures that dictate the claims process and any subsequent litigation. This federal law preempts most state laws that would otherwise govern these types of benefit plans, creating a distinct legal landscape for resolving disputes over denied claims. Unlike typical insurance litigation, ERISA cases are generally heard in federal court without a jury, and remedies for wrongful denial are limited by the statute itself, excluding claims for bad faith or punitive damages that might be available under state law.

A central aspect of ERISA LTD litigation is the standard of review that courts apply when evaluating a plan administrator's decision to deny benefits. This standard dictates the level of scrutiny the court will use to assess the administrator's decision and can significantly influence the outcome of a case. ERISA outlines two primary standards of review: "de novo" and "abuse of discretion". Under "de novo" review, the court examines the claim decision afresh, without any deference to the plan administrator's determination. In this instance, the court independently evaluates whether the plan administrator correctly or incorrectly denied benefits based on the plan terms and the evidence presented. Conversely, the "abuse of discretion" standard, also known as the "arbitrary and capricious" standard, requires the court to defer to the plan administrator's decision unless it is found to be clearly erroneous, arbitrary, or capricious. This standard acknowledges the plan administrator's role in interpreting the plan and determining eligibility, granting them a degree of latitude in their decision-making.

This blog specifically addresses the question of whether a plan administrator's failure to apply the terms of an ERISA LTD plan constitutes an abuse of discretion. This is a critical inquiry for legal professionals handling such cases, as demonstrating such a failure can be a key element in challenging a denial of benefits under the deferential "abuse of discretion" standard. The analysis will explore the definition and legal interpretation of this standard, the role of discretionary clauses in triggering it, exceptions that may lead to "de novo" review, the fiduciary duty of plan administrators to adhere to plan terms, and relevant case law across various federal circuits that addresses this specific issue.

The "abuse of discretion" standard in ERISA LTD cases is a well-established legal doctrine that compels courts to respect the decisions of plan administrators unless those decisions are deemed unreasonable. Often referred to as the "arbitrary and capricious" standard, it mandates that a court will uphold the insurance company's decision if it is considered reasonable, even if there might be other plausible interpretations or if the outcome appears unfavorable to the claimant. To overturn a decision under this standard, a claimant must demonstrate that the insurance company's action was arbitrary, capricious, or a clear abuse of the discretion granted to them by the plan. This requires showing that the decision lacked a rational basis or was made without a logical connection to the plan's terms and the available evidence. In practical terms, a judge reviewing a case under the "abuse of discretion" standard will primarily focus on the reasonableness of the insurance company's decision-making process, rather than substituting their own judgment on the merits of the claim. The denial of benefits will only be reversed if the insurance company's decision was both incorrect and objectively unreasonable.

The "abuse of discretion" standard stands in contrast to "de novo" review, where the court examines the case anew, without any obligation to defer to the insurer's initial determination. Under "de novo" review, the court independently assesses all the evidence presented and decides whether the claimant meets the plan's definition of disability. The court essentially starts from the beginning, evaluating whether the plan administrator correctly or incorrectly denied benefits based on its own interpretation of the plan and the evidence. The "abuse of discretion" standard, however, places a heavier burden on the claimant, requiring them to prove that the insurer's decision was not just wrong, but also lacked a reasonable basis.

The application of the "abuse of discretion" standard is typically contingent upon the presence of a "discretionary clause" within the LTD policy. This clause explicitly grants the insurance company or plan administrator the authority to determine a claimant's eligibility for benefits and to interpret the terms of the plan. It essentially states that the insurer has the discretion to make decisions regarding benefit claims. The Supreme Court has provided guidance on what constitutes a grant of discretion, suggesting that it exists when the administrator has the power to interpret disputed or doubtful terms within the plan document. Language that grants the administrator the power to interpret plan terms and to make final benefit determinations is generally sufficient to confer discretion.

Despite the prevalence of discretionary clauses, there are exceptions where the "abuse of discretion" standard may not apply. If an ERISA plan document does not contain clear and unambiguous language granting the administrator discretionary authority, the standard of review defaults to "de novo". Furthermore, some states have enacted laws that impact the applicability of discretionary clauses. For instance, in California, state law prohibits the inclusion and enforcement of discretionary clauses in life and disability insurance policies that were issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2012, for California residents, mandating "de novo" review in such cases. Even when the "abuse of discretion" standard applies, courts may engage in "heightened review" if certain factual circumstances are present, such as the insurance company disregarding plan language or evidence favorable to the claimant. Moreover, egregious and widespread violations of ERISA's procedural requirements by the administrator can lead a court to review the benefit denial de novo. Finally, the existence of a conflict of interest, particularly when the insurer both decides and pays the claim, is a significant factor that courts must consider and can, in certain circumstances, lead to a shift from the "abuse of discretion" standard to "de novo" review.

The fundamental principle in ERISA law is that a plan administrator has a fiduciary duty to administer the plan according to its written terms. ERISA imposes these fiduciary obligations to ensure that plans are managed in the best interests of the participants and beneficiaries. This duty includes interpreting and applying the plan's eligibility criteria, definitions, and procedures accurately and consistently. Consequently, a failure by a plan administrator to apply the terms of the LTD plan can indeed constitute an abuse of discretion under ERISA. While the "abuse of discretion" standard provides deference to the administrator's decision, this deference is predicated on the assumption that the administrator is acting within the bounds of the plan document. A decision that ignores or misapplies the clear language or requirements of the plan is inherently unreasonable and can be challenged as an abuse of that discretion.

Courts have consistently indicated that an administrator's decision must be based on a reasonable interpretation and application of the plan's terms. If an insurance company "blatantly ignores its own policy language," this can lead to a heightened level of scrutiny, potentially even shifting the standard of review to de novo. The case of Mullins v. CONSOL Energy Inc. Long Term Disability Plan from the Third Circuit in 2024 provides a clear example. In this case, the court found that the termination of a coal miner's LTD benefits was an abuse of discretion because the claims administrator relied on a vocational assessment that incorrectly classified the plaintiff's job. This misclassification led to an improper determination of whether the plaintiff could perform "any suitable employment" as required by the plan's definition of total disability. The court specifically highlighted the failure to accurately apply the plan's terms regarding the plaintiff's occupation. Similarly, in Scott v. Eaton Corporation Long-Term Disability Plan, the court determined that the plan administrator abused its discretion by ignoring favorable evidence when assessing the claimant's eligibility for benefits, indicating a failure to adhere to the plan's requirements for evaluating disability.

When determining whether a plan administrator's failure to apply plan terms amounts to an abuse of discretion, courts consider a multitude of factors. Foremost among these is the language of the plan itself. Courts will meticulously examine the specific wording of the LTD plan to ascertain the correct interpretation of the terms in question. The purposes and goals of the plan may also be considered to ensure that the administrator's interpretation aligns with the overall objectives of providing disability benefits. The reasonableness of the administrator's interpretation of plan terms is a critical factor. This involves assessing whether the interpretation is consistent with the plain meaning of the plan language, the context of the plan as a whole, and whether it is logical and supported by the evidence in the administrative record. An interpretation that appears to be a pretext for denying a valid claim, even if seemingly reasonable, may not be considered made in good faith.

Courts also evaluate the adequacy of the materials considered by the administrator and whether they support the decision. A failure to consider crucial evidence related to the plan terms, such as medical records or vocational assessments, can indicate an abuse of discretion. As established in Salley v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. (Fifth Circuit), a failure to adequately investigate the circumstances before denying benefits can be deemed an abuse of discretion. The consistency of the administrator's interpretation with other provisions of the plan and with past interpretations is another important consideration. Inconsistent application of plan terms can suggest an arbitrary or capricious decision. Furthermore, the court will examine whether the decision-making process was reasoned and principled. A decision that lacks a clear rationale or appears to be based on flawed reasoning regarding the plan terms is more likely to be overturned.

Compliance with the procedural and substantive requirements of ERISA is also crucial. This includes ensuring a full and fair review of the claim and adhering to ERISA's claims regulations. Courts may also consider any external standards relevant to the exercise of discretion, such as applicable case law or regulatory guidance. The fiduciary's motives and any conflict of interest are also weighed. A conflict of interest, particularly when the insurer both funds and administers the plan, can lead to a lower level of deference given to the administrator's decision. Ultimately, the court will assess whether the administrator's failure to properly apply the plan terms rendered the decision arbitrary and capricious and whether the decision was based on substantial evidence in the administrative record. The presence of procedural irregularities can also be a significant factor in determining abuse of discretion, especially if these irregularities hindered the proper application of the plan terms. Taking inconsistent positions or ignoring critical evidence related to the plan terms can also lead to a finding of arbitrary and capricious behavior.

The interpretation of the "abuse of discretion" standard in the context of failing to apply plan terms can vary across the federal circuit courts.

In the First Circuit, courts apply "de novo" review unless the ERISA plan clearly grants the administrator discretionary authority to determine benefits eligibility or interpret plan terms. Language such as "proof satisfactory to us" or granting the administrator exclusive control and authority to interpret the plan is generally sufficient to trigger the "abuse of discretion" standard. The First Circuit also considers a conflict of interest as a factor in the "abuse of discretion" analysis, emphasizing that the conflict must be real and not merely speculative. Discovery outside the administrative record is generally not permitted unless a colorable claim of bias or improper influence of a structural conflict is established.

The Second Circuit employs both "de novo" and "arbitrary and capricious" (abuse of discretion) standards. Procedural claim violations may trigger "de novo" review. A denial can be deemed an abuse of discretion if the administrator's interpretation of "any gainful employment" in an LTD policy is unreasonably narrow. Furthermore, a failure to issue a timely appeal decision can lead to "de novo" review if the delay demonstrably harmed the insured.

The Third Circuit held in Mullins v. CONSOL Energy Inc. Long Term Disability Plan that terminating benefits by failing to identify suitable alternative jobs, as required by the plan's definition of disability, constituted an abuse of discretion. This circuit requires a showing that a conflict of interest "actually infected the decision-making process" to find an abuse of discretion. A plan administrator's denial can be considered arbitrary and capricious if it does not strictly comply with ERISA claims regulations and lacks a sufficient explanation for the denial. Notably, the Third Circuit has also ruled that de novo review may be applied if the plan ignores its own provisions by allowing an unauthorized entity, rather than the designated benefits committee, to make benefit determinations.

In the Fourth Circuit, courts review the denial of benefits de novo unless the plan explicitly grants the administrator discretion to make coverage decisions. When such discretion is granted, the standard of review is abuse of discretion. The Fourth Circuit considers a set of factors, initially developed in Booth v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., when assessing whether an administrator's denial of coverage was an abuse of discretion. These factors include the language of the plan, its purposes and goals, the adequacy of the materials considered, the consistency of the administrator's interpretation, whether the decision-making process was reasoned and principled, compliance with ERISA requirements, any relevant external standards, and the fiduciary's motives and potential conflicts of interest. The Fourth Circuit has found an abuse of discretion in cases where the administrator failed to consider the risk of future harm from a cardiac condition when evaluating a claim for LTD benefits.

The Fifth Circuit will reverse a plan administrator's decision only if it constitutes an abuse of discretion, provided the plan language grants the administrator the discretion to interpret the plan and determine eligibility for benefits. Abuse of discretion is found when the decision is not based on evidence, even if disputable, that clearly supports the basis for the denial. This circuit also weighs any conflict of interest the administrator may have as a factor in determining whether an abuse of discretion occurred. Similar to other circuits, the Fifth Circuit has held that a failure to adequately investigate the circumstances surrounding a claim before denying benefits can be considered an abuse of discretion, as seen in the case of Salley v. DuPont.

The Sixth Circuit reviews a plan administrator's denial of benefits de novo unless the plan grants discretionary authority to the administrator, in which case the arbitrary and capricious standard applies. This circuit acknowledges that a conflict of interest exists when the plan administrator both determines a claim for benefits and pays those benefits, and this conflict must be weighed as a factor in the abuse of discretion analysis. The Sixth Circuit has also held that de novo review is appropriate when a benefits decision is made by a body other than the one explicitly authorized by the procedures set forth in the benefits plan. Furthermore, the court has clarified the interplay between physical and mental health disabilities when applying the limitations clauses found in many LTD plans.

In the Seventh Circuit, the abuse of discretion standard is applied if the plan grants the administrator discretionary authority. Under this standard, the administrator's decision should not be overturned as long as there is a reasoned explanation for the outcome based on the evidence and the relevant plan documents. The Seventh Circuit has also indicated that a failure to afford a claimant a "full and fair review" of their claim, as mandated by ERISA, can lead to a reversal of the administrator's decision.

The Eighth Circuit applies the abuse of discretion standard when the plan grants the administrator discretionary authority. In this circuit, a claimant seeking to overturn a denial must present evidence of factors that tend to demonstrate a consequential conflict of interest or other indications of biased decision-making. The Eighth Circuit views the arbitrary and capricious standard as highly deferential to the insurer, requiring the claimant to show that the decision was "downright unreasonable" and not merely wrong.

The Tenth Circuit reviews a denial of benefits de novo unless the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan. When such discretion is granted, the standard of review is arbitrary and capricious. Under this standard, the court assesses whether the administrator's decision was reasonable and made in good faith. The Tenth Circuit has found an abuse of discretion in cases where the administrator failed to comply with either the letter or the spirit of ERISA's claims-processing requirements, thereby depriving the claimant of the meaningful dialogue required by the statute. Notably, some within the Tenth Circuit have expressed concerns regarding the authority of federal courts to remand ERISA benefit cases back to the insurance companies or claim administrators that initially denied benefits.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of an LTD benefits claim based on a pre-existing condition, finding that the insurer's determination was reasonable and deserved deference under the abuse of discretion standard. This circuit applies a six-step test to determine whether an abuse of discretion has occurred. The Eleventh Circuit will uphold the administrator's decision if it was reasonable, even if the court itself might have reached a different interpretation of the policy.

In the D.C. Circuit, a deferential standard of review is applied to an administrator's denial of benefits under a long-term disability plan if the terms of the plan unambiguously grant the administrator the power to construe critical terms of the plan. The D.C. Circuit has also addressed whether a short-term disability plan could be exempt from ERISA as a "payroll practice" under Department of Labor regulations.

Several ERISA LTD cases illustrate instances where courts have specifically ruled that a failure to adhere to plan terms constituted an abuse of discretion. In Mullins v. Consol Energy, Inc. Long Term Disability Plan (Third Circuit, 2024), the court found an abuse of discretion when the administrator terminated benefits based on a vocational report that misidentified the plaintiff's job, leading to an incorrect assessment of "suitable employment" as defined in the plan. The court emphasized that the administrator failed to apply the correct definition of the plaintiff's occupation as outlined in the plan. Similarly, Scott v. Eaton Corporation Long-Term Disability Plan demonstrates a situation where the court concluded that the administrator abused its discretion by disregarding favorable evidence when determining the claimant's eligibility for benefits, reflecting a failure to adhere to the plan's requirements for evaluating disability.

In H.A. v. Tufts Health Plan, the court reversed the denial of residential mental health treatment coverage, finding that the administrator's interpretation of the plan was unreasonable and inconsistent, wrongly imposing acute care medical necessity requirements for subacute care, thereby ignoring the actual terms of the plan. Another case, Allison M. v. The Mueller Indus., saw the court finding denials of claims for mental and behavioral health treatment at residential treatment centers to be arbitrary and capricious because the administrator did not attempt to apply the plan's terms specifically to the treatment centers, failing to provide a full and fair review as required by the plan. Furthermore, in Smith v. Cox Enters., the Fourth Circuit found an abuse of discretion when the administrator failed to provide a sufficient explanation for disagreeing with the Social Security Administration's disability determination and overlooked a relevant medical report, implying a failure to properly consider all information as potentially required by plan terms for a full and fair review. Additionally, cases involving procedural irregularities that hinder the proper evaluation of a claim under plan terms have also led to findings of abuse of discretion. For example, in Gordon v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Ninth Circuit), the failure to issue a timely final decision was considered a significant procedural flaw.

When a court finds that a plan administrator has abused its discretion by failing to apply the terms of an ERISA LTD plan, several legal consequences and remedies may follow. The most common consequence is the reversal or vacating of the administrator's decision to deny benefits. In such cases, the court may order the plan to reinstate the claimant's long-term disability benefits. Additionally, the court will typically order the plan to provide payment of back benefits to the claimant, covering the period from the initial denial until the present time. This may also include interest on the delayed payments.

In some instances, the court may choose to remand the case back to the plan administrator for a renewed review of the claim. This often occurs when the court believes that the administrator could potentially reach a different conclusion if they properly applied the plan terms or considered all relevant evidence that was initially overlooked. The court may provide specific instructions or guidance to the administrator on how to conduct this re-evaluation in accordance with the plan's provisions and ERISA requirements. However, a remand can be less favorable for claimants as it does not guarantee an award of benefits and involves further administrative processes.

ERISA grants the court the discretion to award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to either party in the litigation. While not automatic, prevailing claimants who successfully demonstrate an abuse of discretion may be awarded their legal expenses. It is important to note that ERISA generally limits the available remedies to the recovery of benefits owed under the plan. Unlike state law claims for breach of contract or bad faith, ERISA typically does not allow for the recovery of compensatory damages for emotional distress or punitive damages intended to punish the insurer for wrongful conduct. ERISA also permits claimants to seek equitable relief, such as an injunction to prevent practices that violate ERISA or the terms of the plan.

The clarity of language within ERISA LTD plan documents plays a crucial role in a court's analysis of whether the plan terms were properly applied. Courts generally interpret ERISA plan documents according to their plain and ordinary meaning. When the language is clear and unambiguous, it establishes a clear framework for how the administrator should apply the plan's terms, reducing the potential for disputes. Clear and unambiguous language granting discretionary authority to the administrator makes it more likely that the court will apply the deferential "abuse of discretion" standard when reviewing the administrator's decisions regarding eligibility and plan interpretation.

Conversely, ambiguous or poorly defined terms within the plan can significantly impact the court's analysis. If a crucial term or condition is susceptible to multiple reasonable interpretations, courts may scrutinize the administrator's chosen interpretation more closely. In some cases, if the language granting discretionary authority itself is ambiguous, courts may decline to apply the "abuse of discretion" standard and instead review the denial of benefits de novo. The Tenth Circuit's decision in Hodges illustrates this point, where the court applied de novo review because the policy language did not unequivocally grant the administrator discretion to interpret certain plan terms related to employee classification. The Supreme Court's guidance that discretion is conferred when the administrator has the "power to construe disputed or doubtful terms" suggests that the absence of such clear power might lead to a different standard of review.

The presence of procedural irregularities in the claim review process, when combined with a failure to apply the substantive terms of the LTD plan correctly, can significantly strengthen an argument that the plan administrator abused their discretion. Procedural flaws can raise serious doubts about the fairness and thoroughness of the administrator's decision-making process, potentially leading courts to grant less deference under the "abuse of discretion" standard. Egregious and widespread violations of ERISA's procedural requirements can even result in a shift to "de novo" review.

Examples of procedural irregularities include failing to conduct a full and fair review of the claim, relying on biased medical reviewers, ignoring relevant medical opinions from treating physicians, failing to provide a reasoned explanation for the denial, not considering all the evidence submitted by the claimant, and failing to adhere to ERISA's claims procedure regulations. The Ninth Circuit's ruling in Abatie underscores that significant procedural violations can elevate the level of judicial scrutiny to de novo review. As seen in Chacko v. AT&T Umbrella Benefit Plan No. 3, procedural irregularities can bring heightened skepticism to the claim review, tempering the deference usually afforded. In this case, the failure to consider job requirements and the adequacy of a paper review despite contradictory SSA findings were considered procedural irregularities contributing to the finding of abuse of discretion. The Seventh Circuit's decision in Zall v. Standard Insurance Company further illustrates that a failure to provide a "full and fair review" as mandated by ERISA can lead to the reversal of a grant of summary judgment for the insurer.

In K.A. v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., a case where a denial was deemed arbitrary and capricious partly due to the administrator's failure to adequately consider the opinions of the child's treating doctors, suggests a failure to fully apply plan terms related to medical necessity and a full and fair review. Similarly, the reversal in H.A. v. Tufts Health Plan was based on the finding that the administrator's interpretation of the plan was unreasonable and inconsistent, effectively ignoring the plan's language. Another example is Allison M. v. The Mueller Indus., where denials were found arbitrary and capricious because the administrator did not attempt to apply the plan's terms specifically to the treatment centers, thus failing to provide a full and fair review as required by the plan. The case of Smith v. Cox Enters., resulted in a finding of abuse of discretion for failing to adequately explain disagreement with the SSA's disability determination and overlooking a relevant medical report, implying a failure to properly consider all relevant information as potentially required by plan terms. Finally, Hampton v. National Union, saw the application of de novo review because the plan administrator failed to properly delegate fiduciary authority according to the plan's own procedures, underscoring the importance of adhering to plan terms regarding administration.

In conclusion, the failure of a plan administrator to apply the terms of an ERISA LTD plan can indeed constitute an abuse of discretion. While the "abuse of discretion" standard generally requires courts to defer to the administrator's decision, this deference is not absolute and is contingent upon the administrator acting reasonably and in accordance with the plan's provisions. Courts consider a multitude of factors when evaluating such claims, including the language of the plan, the reasonableness of the administrator's interpretation, the evidence considered, the consistency of application, and the presence of any procedural irregularities or conflicts of interest. The interpretation of this standard can vary across the federal circuits, with some circuits being more willing than others to find an abuse of discretion or even apply a de novo standard of review in certain circumstances. Case law examples, including those highlighted in the ERISAwatch blog, demonstrate that courts will scrutinize administrators' decisions for adherence to plan terms and procedural fairness.

For your specific LTD case, it is recommended to undertake a thorough analysis of the LTD plan document to identify any ambiguities or instances where the administrator's interpretation deviates from the plain meaning of the plan language. Scrutinize the administrator's decision-making process for any procedural irregularities, such as a failure to consider all relevant medical evidence or reliance on biased reviews. Compare the facts of your case to the case law precedents discussed in this report, paying particular attention to cases within your governing federal circuit. Assess whether a conflict of interest exists and how it might have influenced the administrator's application of the plan terms. Develop a legal argument that clearly articulates how the administrator's actions were arbitrary, capricious, or a clear error in judgment due to their failure to properly apply the terms of the LTD plan. Consider arguing for a de novo standard of review if the plan lacks a clear discretionary clause, if state law prohibits such clauses in your case, or if there were egregious procedural violations. Finally, based on your analysis, determine the most appropriate legal remedies to pursue, such as reinstatement of benefits or payment of back benefits.

Disclaimer: The information provided here is for general knowledge and informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with a qualified lawyer for advice regarding your specific situation.