Chacko v. Sabre, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

473 F.3d 604 · 2006

Citation profile

cited by 38 later decisions

states following

January 2017

most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1140 (§ 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)

Relies on Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen · Meditrust Financial Services Corporation v. The Sterling Chemicals Incorporated · Vega v. National Life Insurance Services, Inc. · Thurman v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“We hold today that, when confronted with a denial of benefits by a conflicted administrator, the district court may not impose a duty to reasonably investigate on the administrator. Under our own precedent and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruch, we must give deference to the administrator’s decision. That the administrator decides a claim when conflicted, however, is a relevant factor. In a situation where the administrator is conflicted, we will give less deference to the administrator’s decision. In such cases, we are less likely to make forgiving inferences when confronted with a record that arguably does not support the administrator’s decision. Although the administrator has no duty to contemplate arguments that could be made by the claimant, we do expect the administrator’s decision to be based on evidence, even if disputable, that clearly supports the basis for its denial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 529 F. Supp. 2d 620 - Ellison v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MISS. · Cook Children's Medical Center v. New England PPO Plan of General Consolidated Management, Inc.
“we [] review the administrator's decision with only `a modicum less deference' than we otherwise would.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Cook Children's Medical Center v. New England PPO Plan of General Consolidated Management, Inc.
“leav[ing] open the possibility that it would limit claims to reduce its liability”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Cook Children's Medical Center v. New England PPO Plan of General Consolidated Management, Inc.

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.