Opinion ID: 794475
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Consideration of evidence outside administrative record

Text: 17 Hartford next claims that the district court abused its discretion by admitting Dr. Stoller's report. Again, we disagree. Where, as here, the plan administrator is not disinterested ( i.e., Hartford was both the plan administrator and insurer), the decision whether to admit additional evidence is one which is discretionary with the district court, but which discretion ought not to be exercised in the absence of good cause. DeFelice v. Am. Int'l Life Assurance Co., 112 F.3d 61, 66 (2d Cir.1997), cited in Muller v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., 341 F.3d 119, 125 (2d Cir.2003). The district court, applying DeFelice, found that good cause existed for the admission of the report because it was highly probative and written by a disinterested party who had actually examined Paese, and because Paese was not at fault for the report's initial absence from the record. 1 In light of these entirely appropriate findings, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the report. 18