From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blankenship v. Metropolitan Life Ins.

U.S.
Sep 26, 2011
No. 11-444 (U.S. Sep. 26, 2011)

Opinion

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT.

No. 11-444.

September 26, 2011.

PETER H. BURKE, Counsel of Record, BURKE HARVEY FRANKOWSKI LLC, Birmingham, AL.

JOHN M. PENNINGTON, PENNINGTON LAW FIRM, LLC, Birmingham, AL, Attorneys for Petitioner.


QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Has the Eleventh Circuit misunderstood this Court's guidance in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 128 S. Ct. 2343 (2008) (" Glenn"), because its unique six-question formula does not provide a rational way for deciding whether a structurally conflicted ERISA decision-maker abused its discretion?

2. Given that other Courts of Appeals do not use the Eleventh Circuit's six-step analysis, should this Court issue further clarification of its holding in Glenn so as to provide better guidance to the lower courts?

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS

The parties in this Court and to the proceedings are the Petitioner-Plaintiff, Frank Blankenship and the Respondent-Defendant, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. There are no other parties.

RULE 29.6 STATEMENT

Petitioner Frank Blankenship has no parent company and no publicly owned company owns ten percent or more of its stock.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Glenn Glenn, Glenn Blankenship v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 644 F.3d 1350 Blankenship v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 686 F. Supp. 2d 1227

QUESTIONS PRESENTED.................................................... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS ........................................... ii RULE 29.6 STATEMENT................................................... ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES................................................... v PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI...................................... 1 OPINIONS BELOW.......................................................... 1 JURISDICTION........................................................... i STATUTES AND REGULATIONS INVOLVED...................................... 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE.................................................. 2 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION...................................... 5 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT................................................ 6 ARGUMENT............................................................... 7 A. This Court's decision in has unfortunately left open the question of how courts should weigh the structural conflict- of-interest ..................................................... 7 B. In light of the Eleventh Circuit's unique six-question formula does not pro- vide a rational way for deciding whether a structurally conflicted ERISA decision- maker abused its discretion .................................... 10 C. The evidence in the record shows that MetLife's denial was arbitrary and capricious...................................................... 15 1. MetLife selectively relied upon medical evidence and/or engaged in a rigged re- view process................................................. 15 2. The money at issue played an important factor in Blankenship's denial and plays an important factor in countless other denials................................................ 19 D. Given that other Courts of Appeals do not use the Eleventh Circuit's six-step analysis, should this Court issue further clarification of its holding in so as to provide better guidance to the lower courts?.......................................................... 23 CONCLUSION.......................................................... 30 APPENDIX (11th Cir. 2011).................. App. 1 (N.D. Ala. 2009)..................................................... App. 16

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES


Summaries of

Blankenship v. Metropolitan Life Ins.

U.S.
Sep 26, 2011
No. 11-444 (U.S. Sep. 26, 2011)
Case details for

Blankenship v. Metropolitan Life Ins.

Case Details

Full title:FRANK BLANKENSHIP, Petitioner, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY…

Court:U.S.

Date published: Sep 26, 2011

Citations

No. 11-444 (U.S. Sep. 26, 2011)