William Bishop Published in Sacramento Area Human Resource Association (SAHRA) Newsletter

"Potential Conflicts-of-Interest in Benefits Denials: U.S. Supreme Court Reinforces 'Dual Role' Conflict-of-Interest Analysis in Benefits Denial Cases"

William Bishop's article, "Potential Conflicts-of-Interest in Benefits Denials: U.S. Supreme Court Reinforces 'Dual Role' Conflict-of-Interest Analysis in Benefits Denial Cases," was published in the August 2008 issue of Sacramento Area Human Resource Association (SAHRA) Newsletter. In his article, William discusses the recent MetLife v. Glenn decision, where the Court found that "employees may challenge benefits decisions on the basis that the decision-maker has a conflict of interest -- they make the decision to deny the benefit and may financially benefit from the decision." He provides background information and reasoning behind the decision and then goes on to provide the practical implications for Human Resource departments. As he writes, "Human Resource leaders should make sure that whoever makes benefits determinations has no responsibility for, and does not benefit from, the economic performance of their employer. That should be the case whether those decision-makers work for the employer, or are employed by a carrier with whom the employer has an administrative services-only contract or by a third-party administrator."