Opinion ID: 715734
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of ERISA Benefits.

Text: 10 We review de novo a denial of benefits under an ERISA plan unless the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115, 109 S.Ct. 948, 956-57, 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989). If a benefit plan does give an administrator discretionary authority to construe doubtful provisions of the plan itself, the administrator's decision must be upheld unless it was arbitrary and capricious, not supported by substantial evidence or erroneous on a question of law. Millensifer v. Retirement Plan, 968 F.2d 1005, 1009 (10th Cir.1992) (quoting Woolsey v. Marion Lab., Inc., 934 F.2d 1452, 1457 (10th Cir.1991)). If an administrator or fiduciary empowered to interpret the plan is operating under a conflict of interest, that conflict must be weighed as a 'facto[r] in determining whether there is an abuse of discretion.'  Bruch, 489 U.S. at 115, 109 S.Ct. at 957 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Trusts 187, comment d (1959)). 11 In this case, we need not determine whether the Retirement Plan bestows upon the Board discretionary authority sufficient to warrant deferential review under Bruch. We conclude that the Board's actions, including its interpretation of the plant closure provision and its denial of early retirement benefits to Plaintiff, were arbitrary and capricious and therefore fail even under the most deferential standard.