Opinion ID: 183519
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Weighing of the Factors

Text: To decide whether an administrator's termination of benefits is arbitrary and capricious, we determine lawfulness by taking account of several different, often case-specific, factors, reaching a result by weighing all together. Glenn, 554 U.S. at 117, 128 S.Ct. 2343. Here, we give significant weight to our conclusions that American reversed its initial position that Miller was disabled and terminated his benefits without receiving supporting information that differed in any material way from the information upon which it previously relied, and that American considered Miller's failure to obtain his FAA medical certification when it was not required under the Plan. [5] We find equally troubling American's noncompliance with ERISA's notice requirements under § 503, as well as American's failure to fully evaluate Miller's anxiety diagnosis and to reconcile the demanding job requirements of a commercial pilot with Miller's continuing anxiety and risk that he would experience a recurring psychotic episode. Finally, we afford slight weight to the fact that American operated under a conflict of interest in light of its incentive to deny benefits claims. Viewing these factors as a whole, we believe that American's decision to terminate Miller's LTD benefits was not the product of reasoned decision-making and substantial evidence. See Abnathya, 2 F.3d at 45. Rather, there were numerous procedural irregularities and substantive errors on American's part, giving us reason to doubt its fiduciary neutrality. Post, 501 F.3d at 165. Thus, we conclude that American's termination of Miller's benefits was arbitrary and capricious. See Glenn, 554 U.S. at 117, 128 S.Ct. 2343.