to a decision based upon a full and fair review that comports with the requirements of section 503 of the Act. 63 Fed.Reg. 48397 (Sept. 9, 1998). From this language, and similar comments made at other points during the rulemaking process, the plaintiff contends that strict compliance with the procedures set forth in the regulations is now required and that deviations from those procedures will result in decisions that should be afforded no deference by a district court under the de novo standard of review. Some district courts have found that, in light of the Department of Labor’s commentary regarding the new regulations, no substantial compliance exception should be read into the regulations. See, e.g., Reeves v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 376 F.Supp.2d 1285, 1294 (W.D.Okla.2005) (<HOLDING>). In Goldman v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins.
holding that where a party has insisted on strict compliance with the contracts terms the doctrine of substantial performance does not apply holding that substantial compliance with notice is sufficient holding that the substantial compliance doctrine did not apply when a fiduciary failed to issue a timely decision on claimants appeal holding that under the law of the case doctrine an issue of fact or law decided on appeal may not be reexamined by the appellate court on a subsequent appeal holding it is impossible to apply the substantial evidence test where the alj has failed to sufficiently explain his decision