Was UNUMs decision to deny Allen long-term benefits arbitrary and capricious?
Allen also argues on appeal that the trial court erred by failing to find that UNUM’s decision to deny Allen long-term benefits was arbitrary and capricious. The decision of a district court in an ERISA benefits case is usually reviewed de novo. Spangler v. Lockheed Martin Energy Sys., Inc., 313 F.3d 356, 361 (6th Cir. 2002). However, when a policy gives the plan administrator discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan, a court reviewing the plan administrator’s decision should apply the arbitrary and capricious standard of review. McDonaldv. W.-S. Life Ins. Co., 347 F.3d 161, 168 (6th Cir. 2003). There is no dispute that the arbitrary and capricious standard applies in this case. The arbitrary and capricious standard is the least demanding form of judicial review of administrative action. Williams v. Int’l Paper Co., 227 F.3d 706, 712 (6th Cir. 2000). [*15] In making its determination, the court must decide whether the plan admin
