Opinion ID: 1201548
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Completeness of Administrative Record

Text: Menz argues that the case must be remanded because the Plan did not submit a complete administrative record. Specifically, he claims he did not receive policy, procedures and handling guidelines that are relevant to the denial of his claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1. [8] The district court correctly noted that Menz has not established with any specificity what evidence he believes was omitted, or what role such evidence may have played in the Administrator's decision to deny his claim. Menz v. Procter & Gamble Health Care Plan, 2007 WL 927195, , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25854, at  (E.D.Mo. Mar. 22, 2007). Menz makes no further effort on appeal to specify what documents he lacks or their relevance. As such, Menz's contention is meritless. Menz also claims that the administrative record was incomplete because it did not include any administrative agreements between the Plan and Healthlink. Menz does not attempt to demonstrate how these administrative agreements would be relevant pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1. Instead, he claims that they are required to prove that the Plan denied his claim due to a conflict of interest. If Menz could prove that a conflict of interest existed that had some connection with the Plan's decision to deny the claim, a less deferential standard of review would be warranted. See Woo v. Deluxe Corp., 144 F.3d 1157, 1160-61 (8th Cir.1998). To demonstrate that a less deferential standard should apply, Menz must show that (1) a palpable conflict of interest or a serious procedural irregularity existed, which (2) caused a serious breach of the plan administrator's fiduciary duty to [him]. Id. at 1160. Often, a palpable conflict of interest will be apparent from the administrative record. See Farley v. Ark. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 147 F.3d 774, 776 n. 4 (8th Cir.1998). If a conflict of interest is not apparent from the record, the district court may permit discovery and supplementation of the record to establish these facts if the plaintiff makes a showing of good cause. Cf. Brown v. Seitz Foods, Inc. Disability Benefit Plan, 140 F.3d 1198, 1200 (8th Cir.1998). Menz never requested that the court permit limited discovery or supplementation of the record, and he did not make any showing of good cause to do so. He cannot for the first time on appeal argue that he was unable to prove a palpable conflict of interest existed when he did not even attempt to reopen discovery or request supplementation of the record. A less deferential standard of review is not warranted under these circumstances.