Landau appealed Reliance's decision, which was upheld by Reliance's Quality Review Unit, on July 17, 1997. The court should not resolve disputed factual issues, but rather, should determine whether there are factual issues which require a trial. If no factual issues exist and the only issues before the court are legal, then summary judgment is appropriate. The record before this court reveals no contested factual issues that are material to the current dispute, and the only remaining issues, what standard of review applies to Reliance's denial of disability benefits, and what evidence should be considered when reviewing that denial, are legal issues for the court to decide. See Mitchell v.
Summary judgment is, therefore, appropriate.
Reliance contends that its determination that Landau is not entitled to long term disability benefits should only be overturned if it was arbitrary or capricious. See Defendant's Mem. of Law in Support of its Mot. for Partial Summ. Landau argues, to the contrary, that this court is entitled to conduct a de novo review of Reliance's decision. See Opposition, at 6-7. If the plan does grant such authority to the plan administrators, their benefit determinations are reviewed under an arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion, standard.