In the case of The Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Kenneth L. Nord, 2002, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Black & Decker's disability plan administrators. Kenneth Nord had filed a lawsuit against his employer’s long-term disability plan after being denied benefits due to insufficient medical evidence supporting his claim for chronic fatigue and pain syndrome. The Ninth Circuit Court initially sided with Nord, stating that courts should review benefit denials de novo (from scratch) unless the benefit plan gives discretion to an administrator or fiduciary who is operating under a conflict of interest; then it would be reviewed for abuse of discretion instead. However, upon appeal by Black & Decker, the Supreme Court reversed this decision arguing that courts must always use an abuse-of-discretion standard when reviewing decisions made by ERISA-governed plans' administrators given discretionary authority - regardless if they operate under potential conflicts of interest.

In the dissenting opinion for The Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Kenneth L. Nord, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and O'Connor, argued that the majority's decision was not based on a correct interpretation of ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act). They contended that nothing in ERISA requires plan administrators to give special weight to the opinions of treating physicians over those of consulting doctors or other medical experts when determining eligibility for disability benefits. In their view, this requirement imposed by courts is an unwarranted judicial intrusion into matters better left to plan administrators' discretion under ERISA's broad grant of authority. They believed it could lead to arbitrary results as treating physicians may have conflicting interests which might affect their judgment about a patient’s disability status.