Such two-sided issues bar entry of summary judgment for either party. See, e.g., Sallavanti v. Unum Life Ins. Co., of America, 980 F. Supp. 2d 664, 668-72 (M.D. Pa. 2013) (denying summary judgment on de novo review of denied LTD benefits where the probative value of physicians' reports, validity of claimant's subjective reports of pain and symptoms on which doctors' diagnoses were based, claimant's ability to perform the material duties of her occupation, and relevance of post-appeal evidence remained in dispute). What follows is a non-exhaustive list of material issues as to which the evidence is in conflict:

In conducting a de novo review, a district court may not resolve factual disputes at the summary judgment stage. SeeHo v. Goldman Sachs & Co. Group Long Term Disability Plan , Civ No. 2:13-cv-6104-KM-MAH, 2016 WL 8673067, at * 14 (D.N.J. Oct. 28, 2016) ; Sallavanti v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am. , 980 F. Supp.2d 664, 665 (M.D. Pa. 2013). Because the Court cannot resolve that issue, it cannot grant either party's summary judgment motion.