bhoffman | September 1, 2010
SIIA, www.siia.org
By Thomas A. Croft, Esq.
I. The Supreme Court Clarifies ERISA Attorney Fee Provision
We have two reasons for reviewing Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 130 S. Ct. 2149 (2010). First, it is the latest ERISA decision from the Supreme Court cases define ERISA jurisprudence, they cannot be ignored. Second, the case addresses an [...]
bhoffman | August 27, 2010
Employer’s Guide to Self-Insuring Health Benefits, Thompson Publishing Group
Employers and other plan administrators are due greater deference in their benefits plan decisions than some lower courts have allowed, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled after admonishing two lower courts for failing to follow the High Court’s prior decisions establishing ERISA law on plan administration.
The High Court [...]
bhoffman | August 27, 2010
Employer’s Guide to Self-Insuring Health Benefits, Thompson Publishing Group
Employers and other plan administrators are due greater deference in their benefits plan decisions than some lower courts have allowed, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled. The Court’s 5-3 opinion in Conkright v. Frommert allows ERISA plan administrators to retain deferential review even after an erroneous interpretation of [...]
bhoffman | August 25, 2010
Coordination of Benefits Handbook
The government has yet to sort out the conflicting interests involved in subrogation/reimbursement dispute. Because there will be no reform body directly creating subrogation/reimbursement rules, the matter remains one of balancing various laws. For instance, laws in many states limit plans’ ability to recover health expenses based on the “make-whole,” “collateral source” [...]
bhoffman | August 25, 2010
By Jack B. Helitzer, Esq., Coordination of Benefits Handbook
The federal health care reform law attempted to address two major problems with health coverage in the United States; (1) expansion of coverage to the uninsured; and (2) reducing overall health care costs. Most reform provisions won’t take effect for at least a few years. That’s because [...]
bhoffman | August 25, 2010
Coordination of Benefits Handbook
Victims of accidents in subrogation/reimbursement cases have emotional appeal when they argue that tort settlements are reduced without some consideration of the fact that they were not “made whole” or had their recoveries diminished by not requiring a recovering plan to share the legal fees they incurred in making the settlement. There [...]
bhoffman | August 25, 2010
Coordination of Benefits Handbook
Although federal case law is well settled on the principle that an ERISA health plan is entitled to reimbursement of benefits paid from tort settlement proceeds that are clearly identified as such, it appears that attorneys for plan participants still come up with several arguments seeking to avoid such liability. Those arguments [...]
bhoffman | August 25, 2010
Coordination of Benefits Handbook
As we have often seen in cases involving tort settlement proceeds arising from auto accidents, Michigan’s no-fault auto insurance law (Mich. Comp. Laws §500.3135) provides that Michigan drivers can buy secondary no-fault coverage at lower premiums. The law prevents insured health plans issued in Michigan from seeking reimbursement for medical expenses from [...]
bhoffman | August 25, 2010
Coordination of Benefits Handbook
We are familiar with cases where ERISA and state laws conflict. As we know, self-insured health plans that are subject to ERISA may avoid the application of state laws because of ERISA preemption. As we have seen in our analysis of the case Bash v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. on [...]
bhoffman | August 25, 2010
Coordination of Benefits Handbook
In a case that does not involve a health plan subject to ERISA, a Florida appellate court ruled that a health plan’s reimbursement from the proceeds of a settlement of a medical malpractice case was limited to the amount paid by the plan less its pro-rata share of attorney’s fees incurred by [...]
bhoffman | July 19, 2010
www.seethebenefits.com
There is a well-known saying among baseball fans that the “tie goes to the runner.” This is true under one baseball rule that provides that a batter is out if he or the base is tagged before he reaches first. It is not true, however, under another rule that provides that a runner is out [...]
bhoffman | July 19, 2010
CCH® BENEFITS, www.hr.cch.com
On July 1, the Employee Benefit Security Administration provided a temporary safe harbor for outpatient mental health benefit provisions that commonly require a copayment for office visits (for example, physician or psychologist visits) but coinsurance for other outpatient services (for example, outpatient surgery, facility charges for day treatment centers, laboratory charges, or other [...]
Adam V. Russo | July 9, 2010
In addressing the contents of the administrative record that must be disclosed to a claimant, the court in Mondry v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. concluded that a claim administrator’s internal documents and guidelines could be subject to mandatory production in ERISA cases if the claims administrator expressly cites to such documents and equates them [...]
Adam V. Russo | July 9, 2010
The special administrator of the estate of a deceased employee, who was an ERISA plan participant, brought action against the employee’s former employer for breach of fiduciary duty seeking to recover the amount of the employee’s life insurance coverage before his first medical leave of absence, which lapsed when the employee was terminated without notice.
Adam V. Russo | July 9, 2010
Defendant-appellee Ken Ross is the commissioner of the Michigan Office of Financial and Insurance Services (OFIS). OFIS is responsible for licensing, examining, and supervising insurers and nonprofit health care corporations doing business in Michigan. To this end, OFIS’s authority includes the power to disapprove insurance policy forms and documents associated with such forms that are [...]
