Opinion ID: 751769
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Plan administrator's denial of Crocco's appeal

Text: 15 For substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its Memorandum of Decision, which appears at 956 F.Supp. 129, we affirm the district court's judgment that Nazemetz did not provide a full and fair review of APM's certification decision (and hence, that Nazemetz's ratification of APM's decision was arbitrary and capricious). 4 16 Because we do so, we need not consider, and do not embrace or reject the district court's analysis of, the separate questions of (a) whether the notice of denial that APM provided to Crocco was defective, (b) whether APM's fee arrangement and other contractual obligations to Xerox constituted a conflict of interest, and (c) what the consequences of such a conflict, if it existed, would be. We also decline to decide one other issue central to this case; it concerns our jurisdiction to hear this appeal, and deserves some attention.