{"id":3717,"date":"2008-06-23T14:15:41","date_gmt":"2008-06-23T14:15:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.hrresource.com\/articles\/view.php?article_id=3166"},"modified":"2008-06-23T14:15:41","modified_gmt":"2008-06-23T14:15:41","slug":"supreme-court-provides-guidance-about-when-conflict-of-interest-justifies-closer-scrutiny-of-employee-benefit-plan-claims-decisions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/squarehr.com\/index.php\/2008\/06\/23\/supreme-court-provides-guidance-about-when-conflict-of-interest-justifies-closer-scrutiny-of-employee-benefit-plan-claims-decisions\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Provides Guidance About When Conflict of Interest Justifies Closer Scrutiny of Employee Benefit Plan Claims Decisions"},"content":{"rendered":"

In a June 19, 2008 decision, the United States Supreme Court provided helpful guidance to administrators, insurers and employers sponsoring and administering employee benefit plans regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) about the circumstances under which a plan administrator’s decision will qualify for this helpful deferential review when the plan administrator bears responsibility both to administer and to pay claims.  As the availability of deferential review can substantially impact the ability of plan administrators to successfully defend claims decisions against litigation brought by disappointed claimants and the cost of that defense, plan administrators and employers and insurers that sponsor and fund such plans should review their existing plan design and administrative procedures in light of guidance provided by Glenn and other existing judicial precedent to position their plan administrator’s decisions to qualify for judicial deference in the event of a law suit.
\n