In a claim for LTD benefits against an insurance company, the court reversed the denial of benefits as “arbitrary and capricious” where specific findings were lacking as to the essential question of disability. The court found that: “The irreducible logical core of such a finding, [i.e., that the plaintiff was capable of performing alternate occupations], is that a claimant has a residual functional capacity that equals or exceeds the functional requirements of a feasible alternate occupation. These two determinations – the claimant’s capacity and the occupation’s requirements – must together be detailed enough to make rational comparison possible. Otherwise, the ‘finding’ that the claimant can perform alternate occupations consists only of a bald assertion.” Havens v. Continental Casualty Co., 168 Fed. Appx. 207, 2006 U.S.App.LEXIS 14618 (3rd Cir. June 13, 2006).