Section 1132(a) because it inhibits prompt adjudication by the judiciary. See Rush Prudential, 536 U.S. at 381 n. 11, 122 S.Ct. 2151 (noting that a “State might enact an independent review requirement with procedures so elaborate, and burdens so onerous, that they might undermine § 1132(a)”). Section 10-3-1116(3) supplants the remedial structure of Section 1132(a). Thus, ERISA preempts Section 10-3-1116(3). The Court does not find solace in the fact that under Rule 50(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it might be claimed that the Court retains ultimate decision-making ability. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1). Under ERISA, generally, the Court addresses only the “administrative record” before it. Murphy v. Deloitte & Touche Group Ins. Plan, 619 F.3d 1151, 1161 (10th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted); Allison v. UNUM Life Ins.
holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a motion for reconsideration that relied on materials available to the movant at the time of the original motion and where movant did not give any explanation as to why she did not rely on those materials in the first instance 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 court is prohibited from considering materials outside the administrative record where the extrarecord materials sought to be introduced relate to a claimants eligibility for benefits but that this general restriction does not conclusively prohibit a district court from considering extrarecord materials related to an administrators dual role conflict of interest recognizing that failing to convert a rule 12b6 motion to a motion for summary judgment will not constitute reversible error if the dismissal can be justified without considering the outside materials holding that the district court is limited to considering the administrative record in reviewing the denial of benefits under an erisa plan