Narrative Opinion Summary
The court issued an order amending its memorandum disposition dated May 15, 2002, specifically altering the language concerning MetLife's handling of Kistler’s appeal. The amendment highlights that MetLife had knowledge of Kistler's Hashimoto’s Thyroiditis but did not evaluate this information when assessing the claim, constituting a breach of fiduciary duty. The order cites case law to support that decision-makers must consider evidence from both parties before making a decision. The court unanimously voted to deny the petition for rehearing, and no judge requested an en banc consideration, leading to the denial of both the rehearing and en banc petitions.
Legal Issues Addressed
Breach of Fiduciary Dutysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that MetLife breached its fiduciary duty by failing to consider relevant medical information about Kistler's Hashimoto’s Thyroiditis when assessing the claim.
Reasoning: The amendment highlights that MetLife had knowledge of Kistler's Hashimoto’s Thyroiditis but did not evaluate this information when assessing the claim, constituting a breach of fiduciary duty.
Denial of Rehearing and En Banc Petitionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision to deny the petition for rehearing and en banc consideration was unanimous, as no judge requested further review.
Reasoning: The court unanimously voted to deny the petition for rehearing, and no judge requested an en banc consideration, leading to the denial of both the rehearing and en banc petitions.
Requirement to Evaluate Evidencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court referenced case law to emphasize that decision-makers are required to consider evidence from both parties before reaching a decision.
Reasoning: The order cites case law to support that decision-makers must consider evidence from both parties before making a decision.