both C.H. Robinson and Bowers himself stated additional, competing amounts of “Annual Compensation.” In her employment summary, Kippley wrote that Bowers’s base salary was $100,000 after his return to work, and that Bowers actually earned a $12,000 bonus in 2008. Id. at 1214. And Bowers wrote in his own affidavit that he was only eligible for a $10,000 bonus in 2008. Id. at 511. Neither of these amounts would lead to the competing coverage amounts suggested by the parties. As a result, this matter shall be remanded to LINA for determination. See, e.g., McDonel v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. 10-4510, 2012 WL 2395191, at *10 (D.Minn. June 25, 2012) (remanding benefits case for further administrative review); see also Abram v. Cargill, Inc., 395 F.3d 882, 887 (8th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). E. Return of Paid Premiums For his second
holding abuse of discretion review is appropriate when erisa plan grants discretion to the plan administrator holding that district courts order remanding an erisa benefits determination to a plan administrator was nonfinal and therefore not appealable after the remand to plan administrator plan participant still could appeal the district courts decision that erisa preempted her state law claim and if successful she would be able to pursue punitive damage holding that it is appropriate to remand to the plan administrator when the administrative record is incomplete holding district court must remand case when erisa plan administrator fails to make adequate find ings or explain the rationale for its decision holding that appellate court will not remand a case to the district court for a violation of rule 50 if the district courts rationale is apparent from the record