Legal Opinion
Brangman v. AstraZeneca, LP
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided June 25, 2013No. Civil Action No. 12-351PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
ANITA B. BRODY, District Judge.
Plaintiff Deborah Brangman brings suit against Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (“MetLife”) for its adverse determination of her claim for long-term disability (LTD) benefits under the AstraZeneca Long Term Disability Insurance Plan (the “Plan”). The Plan is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. MetLife moves for summary judgment on the grounds that its determination was reasonable, proper, and based on substantial evidence in the administrative record, and that Brangman was not…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- 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
- Metropolitan Life Insurance v. GlennSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
- Black & Decker Disability Plan v. NordSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Fleisher v. Standard InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2012
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Keiser v. Conagra Foods, Inc.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2014
- DWYER v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICADistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2021