Whether the Supreme Court's dicta in Firestone Tire and Rubber Co v. Bruch and the Supreme Court's ruling in Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn render it inappropriate for courts to apply an 'arbitrary and capricious' standard to resolve ERISA cases involving plan beneficiary challenges to a negative benefit eligibility determination by a plan administrator afforded discretion

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Supreme Court’s dicta in Firestone Tire and Rubber Co v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 109 S. Ct. 948, 103 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1989) and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 128 S. Ct. 2348, 171 L. Ed. 2d 299 (2008) render it inappropriate for courts to apply an “arbitrary and capricious” standard to resolve ERISA cases involving plan beneficiary challenges to a negative benefit eligibility determination by a_ plan administrator afforded discretion over such determination by terms of the governing ERISA plan. 2. Whether the Supreme Court’s holding in Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 7158. Ct. 456, 95 L. Ed. 456 (1951) requires courts engaging in “substantial evidence” review of ERISA claims to seriously consider and weigh evidence opposing the administrator’s decision. i RELATED CASES Michael P. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Tex., No. 2:17-cv-764, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Judgment entered May 8, 2020. Michael J.P. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Tex., et al, No. 20-30361, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Judgment entered September 22, 2021, rehearing denied October 25, 2021. ii