Adam V. Russo | July 18, 2007
Recently, the Eastern District Court of Michigan held in Citizens Insurance Company of America v. Pitney Bowes Software Systems Employee Medical & Health Care Service Corp., 2007 WL 713144 (E.D. Mich 2007) that where the Plan document excluded claims covered by automotive insurance in its claim exclusions section, and asserted a right to coordinate benefits with the same types of insurance, these provisions were contradictory and cancelled each other out. This is why The Phia Group matches exclusion language with coordination of benefits and subrogation language, and advises the use of language interpretation provisions as well. (more…)
Category: 6th, Claims Procedures, Claims Review, Coordination of Benefits, Summary Plan Description |
No Comments »
Tags:
Adam V. Russo | July 18, 2007
In Cheryl Street v. Ingalls Memorial Hospital, (2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 18643), the Northern District Court of Illinois held on March 15, 2007 that just as a Plan must identify funds prior to seeking equitable relief in Federal Court, so too must relief sought by participants be specifically identifiable. In one case, decided by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, a group of employee Plan Participants brought their Plan Administrator to court for handling their assets in an irresponsible manner. In Eichorn, et al. v. AT&T Corp., et al., 484 F.3d 644, (May 2, 2007), the Court held that while ERISA makes it illegal for a Plan Administrator to prevent the attainment of rights provided by the Plan, actions that lessen the value of the rights are not so prohibited. As such, in a case like this one, the only relief available was in the form of monetary awards and back pay, which is not “equitable relief” for purposes of Federal jurisdiction. (more…)
Category: 3rd, 6th, 7th, Claims Procedures, Claims Review, Coordination of Benefits, ERISA, Provider Reimbursement, Third Party Administrators |
No Comments »
Tags:
Adam V. Russo | April 4, 2007
In this case, an employee stopped working due to a medical condition and began receiving disability benefits from her employer’s self funded ERISA plan. After two years the case was reassessed, the TPA terminated the benefits. The insured filed suit against the TPA, seeking both payment of past claims and re-instatement of future benefits. The TPA moved to dismiss arguing that it was not a proper defendant in this case because it did not have any financial responsibility to the employee. The employer and plan, the TPA asserted, were the proper defendants. The court denied the motion to dismiss, however, stating that the TPA’s discretionary power over the payment of claims made it a fiduciary to the plan and plan members. (more…)
Category: Claims Procedures, Claims Review, Coordination of Benefits, ERISA, Fiduciary Liability, Third Party Administrators |
No Comments »
Tags:
