Schadler v. Anthem Life Insurance’s Empirical Analysis
147 F.3d 388 · 1998
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Vilma Lissette Vega (1999), King v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company (2005)
24 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell · Reginald R. Brinkmann, Jr. v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner · Bair v. Brown
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(i) The specific reason or reasons for the adverse determination; (ii) Reference to the specific plan provisions on which the determination is based; (iii) A description of any additional material or information necessary for the claimant to perfect the claim and an explanation of why such material or information is necessary; (iv) A description of the plan’s review procedures and the time limits applicable to such proceedings, including a statement of the claimant’s right to bring a civil action under 502(a) of the Act following an adverse benefit determination on review....”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“set[ ] forth the specific reasons for such denial, written in a manner calculated to be understood by the participant”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“afford a reasonable opportunity to any participant whose claim for benefits has been denied for a full and fair review by the appropriate named fiduciary of the decision denying the claim. " 29 U.S.C. §§ 1133. The Department of Labor has further specified that adequate notice requires that the plan give a specific reason for its denial, refer to a specific plan provision on which its denial is based, provide information about how the claimant can perfect his claim, and inform the claimant about how to submit his claim for further review. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 2560.503-1(f). These notice requirements are designed to provide "a meaningful dialogue between ERISA plan administrators and their beneficiaries.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.