Second Circuit Applies Stricter Rules for a Plan Administrator’s Noncompliance with Benefit Claims Regulations

by McDermott Will & Emery

In Depth

On April 12, 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Halo v. Yale Health Plan, 2016 WL 1426291 (2d Cir. Apr. 12, 2016), addressed various issues that could arise during a plan administrator’s review of a participant’s benefit claim, appeal and any ensuing litigation.  The Second Circuit held that, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA):

  • When denying a claim for benefits, a plan administrator’s failure to comply with the US Department of Labor’s (DOL) claims procedure regulations in 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503‐1 will result in the plan administrator’s claim determination receiving no deference on review in federal court, unless the plan’s claims procedures fully conform to regulatory requirements and the plan administrator can establish that any failure was inadvertent and harmless;
  • Civil penalties are not available to a plan participant or beneficiary for a plan administrator’s failure to comply with the claims procedure regulations; and
  • A plan administrator’s failure to comply with the DOL’s claims procedure regulations could warrant the introduction of additional evidence outside the administrative record if the claim determination is challenged in litigation.


In Halo, the plaintiff was a college student who was insured under the university’s health plan.  The plaintiff underwent eye surgery with doctors who were outside of the plan’s network.  The university’s health plan stated that treatment with an out-of-network provider was covered under the plan only if it constituted an emergency or if the plan preauthorized the treatment.

Because the participant’s surgery did not meet the plan’s coverage requirements for out-of-network treatment, the plan administrator denied the plaintiff’s claim for coverage.  In her subsequent lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that the plan and the plan administrator violated the DOL’s claims procedure regulations with respect to both the timing and content of the claim denials.

The US District Court for the District of Connecticut held that (1) when exercising discretionary authority to deny a benefit claim, a plan’s failure to establish or follow reasonable claims procedures in accordance with the DOL’s regulations entitles a claimant to de novo review of the claim in federal court, unless the plan “substantially complied” with the regulation, in which case an arbitrary and capricious standard would apply to the federal court’s review of the claim; and (2) a plan administrator’s failure to follow the DOL’s regulations may result in unspecified civil penalties.  On review, the Second Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s decision.

Standard of Review

The primary issue in Halo focused on what review standard a court should apply when a plan fails to comply with the DOL’s claims procedure regulations:  (1) a de novo standard, which allows a court to take a fresh look at the decision without deference; or (2) a much less exacting arbitrary and capricious review standard, which merely requires the plan administrator to interpret a plan’s provisions reasonably.  After examining regulatory guidance and applicable case law, the Second Circuit concluded that when denying a benefit claim, a plan’s failure to comply with the DOL’s claims procedure regulations will result in that claim being reviewed de novo in federal court, unless the plan has otherwise established procedures in full conformity with the regulations and can establish that its failure to comply with the DOL’s claims procedures when reviewing the benefit claim was inadvertent and harmless.  The Second Circuit rejected the lower court’s substantial compliance doctrine and cautioned that, while minor deviations from the claims procedure regulations may occur, “such deviations should not be tolerated lightly.”

Civil Penalties

The Second Circuit also rejected the district court’s ruling that civil penalties are available to a participant when a plan fails to comply with the DOL’s claims procedures.  The Second Circuit found that the district court’s finding that civil penalties could attach to failures to provide a full and fair review was not supported by the regulations or ERISA.

Administrative Record

In reviewing a claim denial, regardless of the review standard, a district court typically limits its review to the administrative record—the documents and information reviewed and considered by the plan administrator in rendering its claim decision.  When there is good cause, however, a district court may exercise its discretion to consider additional evidence outside of the administrative record.  The Second Circuit has previously held that a conflict of interest in the entity tasked with reviewing a benefit claim could constitute good cause and warrant the review and consideration of additional evidence.  In Halo, the Second Circuit stated that good cause could also be expanded to include a plan’s failure to comply with the DOL’s claims procedures when that failure impacts the administrative record’s development.  The Second Circuit therefore held that a plan’s failure to comply with the DOL’s claims procedures may, in the district court’s discretion, constitute good cause warranting the introduction of additional evidence outside the administrative record.  The Second Circuit remanded this determination to the district court.

Halo’s Impact on Plan Sponsors and Administrators

The Halo decision presents a mixed message to employers.  On the positive side, the Second Circuit reaffirmed that civil penalties are not available to plaintiffs who sue the plan alleging a violation of the DOL’s claims procedures.  On the negative side, the Second Circuit’s decision enhances a plaintiff’s ability to introduce additional evidence that was not included in the administrative record.  More importantly, the Second Circuit lowered the bar for a plaintiff to argue that a de novo review standard should be applied in the face of administrative review errors.  While the general rule in most circuits is that substantial compliance with the DOL’s claims regulations will not change the standard of review from arbitrary and capricious to de novo—even in the face of errors in the claims review process—the Halo decision increases the burden on plans and plan administrators to prove compliance with the DOL’s claims regulations in order to preserve deferential review.  This case provides an important reminder for employers to establish written claim review procedures that conform to the DOL’s claims regulations and adhere to a disciplined administrative procedure when reviewing benefit claims and appeals.  These procedures include, as the Second Circuit notes, enhanced claims procedures for health and welfare plans in situations governed by the Affordable Care Act.  Given the increased employee protections in ERISA claim review procedures over the past decade (see, for example, DOL’s New Disability Claim Rules Add to a Plan Administrator’s Duties under Welfare and Retirement Benefit Plans), employers should review their benefit plans’ claims procedures, evaluate their compliance with applicable law, and make updates as necessary.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© McDermott Will & Emery | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

McDermott Will & Emery

McDermott Will & Emery on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.