Frost

Frost v. Intel Corp.

Good Law
37 F. App'x 295
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 11, 2002No. 01-15972; D.C. No. CV-98-01990-JWSCalifornia1,746 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

1. Because Intel reserved the right to “modify, alter, or amend” the 1988 plan, Frost is subject to the plan terms that were in effect at the time she made her claim. Grosz-Salomon v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 287 F.3d 1154 , 1159 (9th Cir.2001). Therefore, the district court correctly held that the 1991 plan (hereinafter, the “Plan”) applies.

2. When an ERISA plan gives its administrator discretion to determine benefits eligibility, we review a decision denying benefits for abuse of discretion, unless there is a conflict of interest. Regula v. Delta Family-Care Disability Survivorship Plan, 266 F.3d 1130, 1144 (9th Cir. 2001). Even if there is a conflict of interest, we review the plan administrator’s decision for abuse of discretion unless plaintiff comes forward with “material, probative evidence, beyond the mere fact of the apparent conflict, tending to show that the fiduciary’s self-interest caused a breach of the administrator’s fiduciary obligations to the beneficiary.” Id. at 1145 (quoting Atwood v. Newmont Gold Co., 45 F.3d 1317, 1323 (9th Cir.1995)). Assuming without deciding that an actual, serious conflict of interest exists, we agree with the district…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.