Excerpt, from the dissenting judges: "A party may petition for rehearing en banc when 'the panel decision conflicts with a decision of the United States Supreme Court or of the court to which the petition is addressed ... and consideration by the full court is therefore necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of the court's decisions.' ... In this case, the majority ignores United States Supreme Court precedent and our own [ERISA] precedent ... In Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Glenn, the Supreme Court applied Firestone's deferential standard, even where the plan administrator had a conflict of interest arising from her dual role of both evaluating and paying benefits claims.... The Court refused to create special burden-of-proof rules, or other special procedural or evidentiary rules, as an exception to Firestone deference." [Estate of Barton v. ADT Security Serv. Pension Plan, No. 13-56379 (9th Cir. rehearing en banc denied Sept. 20, 2016)]

MORE >>