Schneider v. Sentry Group Long Term Disability Plan’s Empirical Analysis
422 F.3d 621 · 2005
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1133 (§ 503 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Halpin v. Ww Grainger Incorporated · Wolfe v. Jc Penney Company Inc · Grossmuller v. International Union, United Automobile Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America · Hackett v. Xerox Corporation Long-Term Disability Income Plan · Quinn v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass'n
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because of our emphasis on restoring the status quo prior to the defective procedures, we have distinguished between “a case dealing with a plan administrator’s initial denial of benefits and a case where the plan administrator terminated benefits to which the administrator had previously determined the claimant was entitled. Compare Wolfe v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 710 F.2d 388 , 393-94 (7th Cir.1983) (remanding to the administrator for new hearing where initial denial of benefits was not procedurally accurate) with Halpin [v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 962 F.2d 685 , 697 (7th Cir.1992) ] (affirming district court’s reinstatement of plan benefits where termination was not procedurally adequate).””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) provide adequate notice in writing to any participant or beneficiary whose claim for benefits under the plan has been denied, setting forth the specific reasons for such denial, written in a manner calculated to be understood by the participant, and (2) 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.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“afford the beneficiary an explanation of the denial of benefits that is adequate to ensure meaningful review of that denial.”
2 later decisions 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.