Opinion ID: 863989
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: ¶9. In Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. v. Bruch, the United States Supreme Court established the rule that courts must apply a de novo standard of review in actions brought by ERISA plan participants to challenge the denial of benefits unless the plan vests the plan administrator with discretionary authority to make eligibility determinations or construe the plan's terms. Sunbeam-Oster Co. Group Benefits Plan v. Whitehurst, 102 F.3d 1368, 1373 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Firestone, 489 U.S. 101, 115, 109 S. Ct. 948, 103 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1989)). It is only in those cases involving plans that have not vested their administrators with such authority that the court must follow traditional principles of trust law and construe a participant's claim 'as it would have any other contract claim–by looking to the terms of the plan and other manifestations of the parties' intent. Id. If the plan vests the plan administrator with discretionary authority to make eligibility determinations or construe the plan's terms, the appropriate standard of review is for abuse of discretion. Walker v. WalMart Stores, Inc., 159 F.3d 938, 939 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing Firestone, 489 U.S. at 115)). ¶10. The Summary Plan Description at issue expressly provides that Plan fiduciaries: shall have discretionary authority to interpret the terms of the Plan and to determine eligibility for and entitlement to Plan benefits in accordance with the terms of the Plan. Any interpretation or determination made pursuant to such discretionary authority shall be given full force and effect, unless it can be shown that the interpretation or determination was arbitrary and capricious. It clearly invests discretion in the Plan administrators, and therefore, the Plan's interpretation should be reviewed by this Court under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. Under this standard [courts] pull back and defer broadly although not totally to the administration's determination, upending it only if persuaded that the administrator acted unreasonably. 4 Cutting v. Jerome Foods, Inc., 993 F.2d 1293, 1296 (7th Cir. 1993) (citing Firestone, 489 U.S. at 115)). As a general rule, this Court applies a de novo standard when reviewing a trial court's ruling on a question of law, which is presented in the trial court's ruling regarding interpretation of the ERISA plan. See Zeman v. Stanford, 789 So.2d 798, 802 (Miss. 2001).