Opinion ID: 2974039
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Standard of Review for MetLife’s Appeal

Text: This Court reviews a decision of a district court in an ERISA benefits case de novo. Spangler v. Lockheed Martin Energy Sys., Inc., 313 F.3d 356, 361 (6th Cir. 2002). The parties agree that the standard of review in this case– where MetLife possessed discretionary authority to construe and interpret the Plan– is whether the denial of benefits was arbitrary and capricious. Id. (citing Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115, 109 S. Ct. 948, 956-97 (1989)). When applying this standard, courts must consider only facts No. 05-5791/05-6327 Evans v. Metro. Life Ins. Co. Page 7 known to the plan administrator at the time of its decision. Yaeger v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 88 F.3d 376, 381 (6th Cir. 1996). “A decision regarding the eligibility for benefits is not arbitrary and capricious if the decision is ‘rational in light of the plan’s provisions.’” Id. (quoting Daniel v. Eaton Corp., 839 F.2d 263, 267 (6th Cir. 1988)). “Stated differently, ‘when it is possible to offer a reasoned explanation, based on the evidence, for a particular outcome, that outcome is not arbitrary or capricious.’” Id. (quoting Davis v. Kentucky Finance Cos. Ret. Plan, 887 F.2d 689, 693 (6th Cir. 1989)). Although highly deferential, “[t]he arbitrary-and-capricious . . . standard does not require us merely to rubber stamp the administrator’s decision.” Jones v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 385 F.3d 654, 661 (6th Cir. 2004).