Working with the Energy and Commerce and the Agriculture Committees, the U.S. House of Representatives’ Ways and Means Committee advanced its portion of the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act”...
As housing shortages increase, real estate developers are undertaking projects to meet the demand in many parts of the country. Explore this practice note discussing special protections and benefits for...
In today’s M&A landscape, earn-out arrangements offer a way to link a portion of the deal’s value to future performance, benefiting both buyers and sellers. However, without clearly defined...
This practice note addresses government guidance on pharmaceutical pricing, pricing in monopolistic markets, pricing in oligopolistic markets, and liability risks. Read now » Related Content...
Do you need to understand state anti-discrimination provisions and protected classes applicable to public and private employment? Review our recently published Employment Discrimination Protected Classes...
* The views expressed in externally authored materials linked or published on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of LexisNexis Legal & Professional.
It’s been more than 30 years since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, which significantly impacted ERISA benefits litigation by applying a standard of review for courts faced with review of an ERISA benefits claim determination. Before Firestone, in most instances, courts reviewing benefit determinations would apply a de novo review standard. This means that an adverse claim is reviewed by a court without being predisposed to either side. The Firestone court held that the abuse of discretion standard (also referred to as the arbitrary and capricious review standard) would apply where the benefit plan contained language sufficient to authorize the party deciding the claim to interpret the plan (or insurance policy) and render benefit determinations. Where the language is used, benefit claimants (usually) face the challenge of proving to the reviewing court that a benefit denial was arbitrary and capricious. Quite a hurdle! Be sure your plans/policies include the requisite language.
Read now »
Related Content
Practical Guidance Updates Featuring the latest updates from your Practical Guidance account.
PRACTICAL GUIDANCE CUSTOMER EMAIL EDITION ON THE WEB
Experience results today with practical guidance, legal research, and data-driven insights—all in one place.Experience Lexis+