4.The court says that its decision in the case does not rest upon a finding that plan administrators acted in bad faith or deliberately withheld documentation. Why then, do you suppose that they acted as they did? Might the fact that this was a "back case" have had some bearing on their actions? Why or why not? I

5.The court decided in this case not to remand the case to the plan administrators for another- presumably more proper-review, as is often done in ERISA denial of benefits cases. Do you agree with this decision? Why or why not?

4.The court says that its decision in the case does not rest upon a finding that plan administrators acted in bad faith or deliberately withheld documentation. Why then, do you suppose that they acted as they did? Might the fact that this was a "back case" have had some bearing on their actions? Why or why not? 5.The court decided in this case not to remand the case to the plan administrators for anotherpresumably more proper-review, as is often done in ERISA denial of benefits cases. Do you agree with this decision? Why or why not