Walker

This case requires resolution of whether the de novo standard of review set out in Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 , 109 S.Ct. 948 , 103 L.Ed.2d 80 (1989) for an insurance disability case brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a), encompasses both plan interpretations and factual determinations. More specifically, we review the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Pamela Walker, who claimed that she was unable to work due to stress, fatigue, and pain, all symptoms of the elusive disease of fibromyalgia. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America and American Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan (collectively “UNUM”) appeal, arguing that the standard of review should be bifurcated and that, even if plan interpretations are reviewed de novo, an abuse of discretion standard should govern factual determinations. UNUM also claims that the district court erred in admitting additional expert medical evidence and granting judgment in *1067 favor of Walker rather than UNUM. We reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings in light of our en banc decision in Kearney v. Standard Ins.…