White v. Aetna Life Insur. Co., 210 F.3d 412 (D.C. Cir. 2000)-This court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that Aetna violated 29 U.S.C. § 1133 when it failed to inform the appellant of an important reason for denying her claim.  Therefore, it could not deny Ms. White's appeal on the basis of untimeliness.

            Although Aetna adequately communicated several of the reasons for which it denied White's claim, it failed to mention an additional reason—that one of the doctors had failed to certify her as disabled.  Thus, based on the information Aetna conveyed through the initial denial notice and in phone calls, "neither White nor her attorney had any way of knowing that to perfect the claim, White needed to get the doctor to certify her as disabled."  This court determined that this was a "major omission" which caused Aetna's notice to fail the substantial compliance test.  Because the sixty-day appeal deadline thus never began to run, this court reversed with instructions to direct Aetna to consider the merits of White's appeal.