Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): view that these findings do not permit the inference that she could perform full-time sedentary work takes too narrow a view of the evidence. Killen also argues that Reliance Standard unfairly brought forward its strongest evidence — the independent medical examiner’s report — only in the final stage of her appeal, thereby preventing her from engaging in the “meaningful dialogue” contemplated by § 1133. See Lafleur v. La. Health Serv. & Indem. Co., 563 F.3d 148, 154 (5th Cir.2009). Circuits that have addressed the issue have generally determined that ERISA does not guarantee claimants an opportunity to rebut an independent medical examination report generated during an appeal prior to a denial of benefits. See Metzger v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 476 F.3d 1161, 1167 (10th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); see also Pettaway v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that erisa does not preempt the plaintiffs claim that the erisa plan administrator is liable for medical malpractice where the plaintiff premised the claim solely on state law and did not invoke the erisa plan (B) holding that district courts order remanding an erisa benefits determination to a plan administrator was nonfinal and therefore not appealable after the remand to plan administrator plan participant still could appeal the district courts decision that erisa preempted her state law claim and if successful she would be able to pursue punitive damage (C) holding that the plan administrator did not abuse her discretion by denying benefits when faced with conflicting medical reports (D) holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant (E) holding that erisa and its implementing regulations do not require a plan administrator to provide a claimant with access to the medical opinion reports of appeallevel reviewers prior to a final decision on appeal
Output (English): holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant