Legal Opinion
Pralutsky v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided May 3, 2004No. CIV. 03-4389RHK/AJBPublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
KYLE, District Judge.
Introduction
Like chronic fatigue syndrome, fibro-myalgia “pose[s] significant problems for disability plan administrators.” Wilkins v. Hartford Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 299 F.3d 945, 947 (8th Cir.2002). After Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) denied Linda Pralutsky’s claim for fibro-myalgia-related disability, Pralutsky filed suit alleging that MetLife breached its fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). Each side has now moved for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Marlin SARCHET, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1996
- Donna Krenik v. County of Le SueurCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1995
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Linda Pralutsky v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Linda Pralutsky v. Metropolitan Life Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2006
- Brucks v. Coca-Cola Co.District Court, N.D. Georgia · 2005
- Holler v. Hartford Life & Accident InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2010
- Payzant v. UNUM Life Insurance Co. of AmericaDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2005
- Lao v. Hartford Life and Accident Ins. Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2004
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.