994139P.pdf   06/19/2001  Michael E. Walke  v.  Group Long Term
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  99-4139
                          and No:  00-1403
   District of Minnesota   
   Civil case - ERISA. When an insurer issues a policy containing 
   ambiguous claims submission language commonly used in 
   non-ERISA contexts, the presumption should be that there was
   no intent to confer discretion, and the decision to deny benefits
   is subject to de novo review; evidence established plaintiff
   could not perform his duties without adverse and objectively
   demonstrated physical consequences and was entitled to benefits;
   however, because plaintiff's disabling stress-induced tachycardia 
   was the result of a mental or nervous disorder, it was subject to
   the plan's 24 month benefits limit; attorneys' fees award 
   affirmed; dissent by Judge John R. Gibson on the mental or
   nervous disorder limitation.