The Daily Brief for Benefits Professionals
BenefitsWire
Health & Welfare Plans
August 24, 2026
— § —
5 items · ~2 min read
Top of the Brief
An ERISA “Any Occupation” Denial Survives Despite Insurer’s Vocational Gaps“The decision illustrates how the “any occupation” definition of disability, combined with a deferential standard of review, can sustain a benefit denial even where the administrative review contains acknowledged flaws. ... Because the plan’s Appointment of Claim Fiduciary granted the insurer discretionary authority to interpret the plan and determine eligibility, the court did not decide whether the denial was “de novo wrong.” Instead, it held that even assuming the decision was wrong, reasonable grounds supported it under the deferential arbitrary-and-capricious standard.”
In this issue
Regulatory Action and Guidance (2) · Litigation (3)
Regulatory Action and Guidance
2 items“An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Joint Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions to improve customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.” MORE >>
Source: Federal Register
“International and Litigation Alert 08.21.2026 On August 3, 2026, UBS Financial Services Inc.” MORE >>
Source: Miller & Chevalier
Litigation
3 items“The court awarded Plaintiff $201,195.00 in attorneys’ fees and $467.00 in costs, well short of the roughly $350,000 in fees her counsel ultimately requested. The decision offers a detailed look at two recurring questions in ERISA litigation: the narrow grounds for altering a judgment after entry, and the evidence a prevailing party must produce to recover fees at ERISA-specialist rates. ... The court held that Plaintiff used Rule 59(e) to relitigate matters the court had already decided or to raise arguments she could have presented before judgment.” MORE >>
Source: Roberts Disability Law
“The decision illustrates how the “any occupation” definition of disability, combined with a deferential standard of review, can sustain a benefit denial even where the administrative review contains acknowledged flaws. ... Because the plan’s Appointment of Claim Fiduciary granted the insurer discretionary authority to interpret the plan and determine eligibility, the court did not decide whether the denial was “de novo wrong.” Instead, it held that even assuming the decision was wrong, reasonable grounds supported it under the deferential arbitrary-and-capricious standard.” MORE >>
Source: Roberts Disability Law
“Unum moved to have the case governed by ERISA, which would preempt those state-law claims and the punitive damages Plaintiff sought. The court granted the motion. ... The court found Plaintiff could not satisfy the voluntariness factor because the accident coverage was one of several coverages within Morton Buildings’ broader benefit plan, some voluntary and some not. Under Tenth Circuit law, optional benefits cannot be severed from a comprehensive plan, so if ERISA applies to any portion, it applies to the whole.” MORE >>
Source: Roberts Disability Law