her alleged disability. See Peterson v. Continental Casualty Co., 282 F.3d 112, 118 (2d Cir.2002) (“Absent a decision by the plan administrator, district courts have no jurisdiction to make an assessment of a beneficiary’s eligibility for benefits.... Since the plan had yet to decide whether the plaintiff deserved benefits for the post-twenty-four-month period, the plaintiff had not suffered an actual or threatened injury.”). Furthermore, although the Court acknowledges an inherent conflict due to CIGNA’s dual status as both administrator and claims payor, Straehle has failed to demonstrate the existence of any additional factors that would constitute good cause to consider evidence outside the administrative record. See Locher v. Unum Life Ins. Co., 389 F.3d 288, 294-295 (2d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). The Court therefore will not consider the
holding that district court was required to give conflict some weight but the existence of the conflict alone was not determinative when record contained no evidence of claims administration history or of claims administrators efforts to reduce potential bias and to promote accuracy holding that while a district court generally may review only the administrative record in determining whether a plan administrator abused its discretion the district court may expand the scope of the record as needed to assess a conflict of interest or flagrant procedural violations holding that in its review of the irs exercise of discretion the court is limited to a review of the administrative record holding that a conflict of interest created by an administrators dual status as claims reviewer and claims payor does not per se constitute good cause to consider evidence outside of the administrative record but that such a conflict of interest in combination with other factors such as insufficient procedures for initial or appellate review or the failure of an insurer to include a claimed reason for denying benefits in its notices to a claimant may constitute good cause for expanding the record upon review holding that a conflict of interest independent of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel  constitute cause where the conflict caused the attorney to interfere with the petitioners right to pursue his  1 claim