Case Citator › Flinders v. Workforce Stabilization Plan of Phillips Petroleum Co.

Flinders v. Workforce Stabilization Plan of Phillips Petroleum Co.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Tenth Circuit
Citation
491 F.3d 1180
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
35 of 35
Citing cases (total)
35
Treatment dates
2008
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. All 35 flagged citations have been read. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Glenn displaced Flinders v. Workforce Stabilization Plan of Phillips Petroleum Co.'s rule shifting the burden to a plan administrator when it has a conflict of interest.
More on how this was screened

The confirmed treatment is listed below. Holcomb v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of America, 573 F.3d 1187 (10th Cir. 2009), expressly recognized that effect. Later courts continue to apply Flinders' rule limiting review to the reasons the administrator gave for denying benefits.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

35 later cases cite Flinders v. Workforce Stabilization Plan of Phillips Petroleum Co.; 35 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Flinders v. Workforce Stabilization Plan of Phillips Petroleum Co.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Supreme Court rejected the special burden shifting used in Flinders for conflicted ERISA plan administrators.

    Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Glenn · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Neither do we believe it necessary or desirable for courts to create special burden-of-proof rules, or other special procedural or evidentiary rules, focused narrowly upon the evaluator/payor conflict. In principle, as we have said, conflicts are but one factor among many that a reviewing judge must take into account.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Flinders v. Workforce Stabilization Plan of Phillips Petroleum Co. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace