the Department of Labor policy expressed in 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1, which states: “The claims procedures of a plan that provides disability benefits will be deemed to be reasonable only if ... the claims procedures do not contain any provision, and are not administered in a way, that requires a claimant to file more than two appeals of an adverse benefit determination prior to bringing a civil action under section 502(a) of the Act.” 29 C.F.R. §§ 2560.503-l(c)(2)-(d). According to the Secretary, reasonable claim procedures “do not contain any provision, and are not administered in any way, that unduly inhibits or hampers the initiation or processing of claims for benefits.” 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503 — 1(b)(3); see Menz v. Procter & Gamble Health Care Plan, 520 F.3d 865 (8th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). “A primary goal of ERISA was to provide a
holding that procedural irregularity resulting in more than two appeals during processing of erisa participants medical benefits claim and stemming from confusion as to which of two claims processors was re sponsible for administering claim and which plan attempted to remedy by giving participant an additional appeal did not warrant less deferential standard of review in erisa benefits denial case holding that erisa does not preempt the plaintiffs claim that the erisa plan administrator is liable for medical malpractice where the plaintiff premised the claim solely on state law and did not invoke the erisa plan holding that a plaintiff in an erisa denial of benefits case bears the burden of proving her entitlement to contractual benefits holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant holding that erisa benefits are not property of the estate