Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): claim. Hall avers that the review procedures only allow United to consult with a health care professional. Thus, he concludes that the structure and organization of the plan prove that United did not have the right to demand an IME when reviewing an appeal after termination of benefits. The Court rejects Hall’s suggested interpretation of the plan. When interpreting the plan at issue, the Court is to “tak[e] all the provisions as a part of an integrated Agreement and view[ ] the provisions in the light of ERISA’s integrated statutory scheme.” Bickley, 461 F.3d at 1329. Thus, Hall’s suggestion that the Court should only look to one part of the plan is unreasonable, as the Court must look at the entire plan. See also Babikian v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 63 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Looking at the language addressing 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an erisa insurance policy is governed by a uniform body of federal common law which requires policy language to be interpreted in an ordinary and popular sense as would a person of average intelligence and experience (B) holding that an arbitration award involving the appellants challenge to the failure of the insurance company to ensure that he had read and understood a signed waiver and to attach the waiver to the insurance policy as contrary to public policy is not reviewable by the courts because there is no challenge to a provision or term of the policy the appellant never claimed that the waiver or policy language itself was contrary to the public policy of this commonwealth (C) holding that policy terms must be read in their ordinary and popular sense (D) holding that federal common law of erisa preempts state law in the interpretation of erisa benefit plans (E) holding that absent follow form language provision that excess policy would continue as underlying policy did not impose coverage as provided in underlying policy
Output (English): holding that an arbitration award involving the appellants challenge to the failure of the insurance company to ensure that he had read and understood a signed waiver and to attach the waiver to the insurance policy as contrary to public policy is not reviewable by the courts because there is no challenge to a provision or term of the policy the appellant never claimed that the waiver or policy language itself was contrary to the public policy of this commonwealth