Jw Walter’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 14 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently October 2016 · most notably Roth v. Sawyer-Cleator Lumber Co. (1994), Moffett v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (2002)
4 federal appellate · 14 district ·
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 Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell · Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co. · Delaware v. New York · Hallstrom v. Tillamook County · Hallstrom v. Tillamook County
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“AHCAI is the PLAN’S third-party administrator as defined by section 3(16) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (6). “ERISA provisions providing for recovery against the ‘plan’ cannot be used to recover against the ‘plan administrator’ because the terms ‘plan’ and ‘plan administrator’ refer to two entirely distinct actors ... [and] are terms of art”. ... Accordingly, AHCAI and the PLAN are separate entities. Section 1132(a)(1)(B) contains no provision which would entitle [the plaintiff] to recover from any entity other than the PLAN for the alleged non-payment of benefits. Therefore, as a matter of law, [the plaintiff] cannot sustain a claim against AH-CAI pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(1)(B) for recovery of such benefits.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any administrator who fails or refuses to comply with a request for any information which such administrator is required by this title to furnish to a participant or beneficiary (unless such failure or refusal results from matters reasonably beyond the control of the administrator) by mailing the material requested to the last known address of the requesting participant or beneficiary within 30 days after such request may in the court’s discretion be personally liable to such participant or beneficiary in the amount of up to $100 a day from the date of such failure or refusal, and the court may in its discretion order such other relief as it deems proper.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In accordance with regulations of the Secretary, every employee benefit plan shall-— (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.”
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.