Blue Circle, Inc. v. Georgia Department of Revenue (2004)

Where such discretion is vested in the administrator, “a district court may review the administrator’s determinations only for an abuse of discretion.” Taft v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y, 9 F.3d 1469 , 1471 n. 2 (9th Cir.1994); see also Nord v. Black & Decker Disability Plan, 356 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir.2004) (“[WJhere, as here, a plan administrator has ‘discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits,’ we review the benefits decision for abuse of discreti…

See Artichoke Joe’s California Grand Casino v. Norton, 353 F.3d 712 , 719 n.10 (9th Cir. 2003) [hereinafter Artichoke Joe’s II] (declining to *484 address whether tribe was necessary party to challenge to the validity of tribal-state gaming compacts because the issue was “raised only in an amicus brief’), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 815 , 51, 160 L.

See Artichoke Joe’s v. Norton, 353 F.3d 712 , 736 (9th Cir.2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 815 , 125 S.Ct. 51 , 160 L.Ed.2d 20 (2004).

Tremain v. Bell Industries, Inc., 196 F.3d 970, 976 (9th Cir.1999); see also Nord v. Black & Decker Disability Plan, 356 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. - — , 125 S.Ct. 62 , 160 L.Ed.2d 20 (2004) (same); Alford v. DCH Foundation Group Long-Term Disability Plan, 311 F.3d 955, 957 (9th Cir.2002) (same).

Moreover, if such a-conflict exists, the court must further distinguish between the mere appearance of a conflict of interest, which .arises by virtue of the administrator’s “economic stake in the benefit decision which it makes,” and a conflict that actually “caused a breach of the administrator’s fiduciary duty to the beneficiary.” Atwood v. Newmont Gold Co., Inc., 45 F.3d 1317, 1322-23 (9th Cir.1995); see also Nord v. Black & Decker Disability Plan, 356 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9…