Archive for the ‘Federal Circuits’ Category

In Hall v. Liberty Life Assurance Company, No.s 08-4738/4739 (6th Cir. 2010), the plaintiff, . Sonya Hall, had received long-term disability benefits (the “LTD Benefits) for nearly five years through the National City Corporation Welfare Benefits Plan (the “Plan”). Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston (”Liberty Life”), the third-party claims administrator, terminated the LTD Benefits when it determined that Hall was no longer totally disabled. The Plan then sought reimbursement for overpayment of the LTD Benefits, caused by retroactive Social Security benefits being awarded to Hall. Hall responded by filing suit against the Plan. Read more

MyHealthGuide Source: Meredith Z. Maresca, BNA’s Pension & Benefits Daily, 1/27/2010, www.bna.com

In a decision addressing identification of the proper defendant in a benefit claim action brought pursuant to the ERISA’s civil enforcement provision, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio held that the health plan’s TPA potentially could be liable for the alleged wrongful denial of benefits to cover a beneficiary’s bone cancer treatment. Read more

January 22, 2010 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – A federal court has refused to dismiss a claim by a Jersey Construction employee that he was fired for pursuing health benefits for his wife’s chemotherapy.

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey said it found that Christian Pailleret stated sufficient facts to support a prima facie case under § 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The court said Pailleret had no “smoking gun” evidence of intent, but the fact that almost immediately after he submitted medical claims of tens of thousands of dollars, he was assigned low-level and “degrading” tasks and shortly after that was terminated without notice or explanation was sufficient to show a plausible claim and “to thus unlock the doors of discovery.” Read more

This is a huge win for the subrogation industry.

The court held that Sereboff, rather than Knudson, controlled in this case. Like in Sereboff, the Plan targeted specific funds for recovery , Cusson’s LTD payments, and identified the specific portion to which Liberty is entitled— the amount of the overpayment while Cusson was receiving benefits under the LTD Plan. Read more

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 04-4067, March 21, 2006

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court’s order that a health benefit plan must pay a hospital the full amount billed for services rendered to a plan beneficiary, and remanded for further proceedings.

A beneficiary of South Lorain Merchants Assn. Health & Welfare Benefit Plan and Trust (the “Plan”) was admitted to University Hospital of Cleveland (“UHC”) in 2000. For services rendered, UHC sent a bill in the amount of $195,000 to the Plan. Without notifying UHC, the Plan audited the bill and provided payment in the amount of $107,000, a reflection of both a $49,000 preferred provider network discount (“Discount”) and the audit’s finding that the charges exceeded the usual, customary and reasonable (“UCR”) amount for such services by $39,000. Read more

January 6, 2010 • HealthPlanLaw.com

While similar to the Butero test, Davila refines Butero by inquiring about the existence of a separate legal duty, which is not a consideration under Butero.

Moreover, a number of other circuits have recognized Davila’s two-part test as the proper test for complete preemption under ERISA . . . In accordance with the Supreme Court’s directive, we too apply Davila.

Conn. State Dental Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 28773 (11th Cir. Fla. Dec. 30, 2009) Read more

In Majeski v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., No. 09-1930 (7th Cir. 2009), the plaintiff, Kirsten Majeski, had been employed by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (”MetLife”), and had participated in MetLife’s Short Term Disability Plan (the “Plan”).

The case centers on the decision of MetLife, as plan administrator, to reject Majeski’s claim for short-term disability benefits, after determining that Majeski had failed to submit enough evidence to support her claim. The district court had likewise rejected Majeski’s claim for the benefits and had granted summary judgment against her. Read more

– On December 9, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, affirmed the federal government’s position that private insurance companies are “plans” and therefore subject to federal jurisdiction. (US vs. Frost)

Although other federal courts have held that contracts issued by insurance companies may be subject to federal jurisdiction under Title 18 Section 1347, US vs. Frost is the first case an insurance company itself has been held to be a “plan,” because, as the government claimed in this case, all insurance companies are “plans.” Read more

Davis v. AK Steel Corp., 2009 WL 3853608 (W.D. Pa. 2009)

The trial court in this case found that an employer’s SPD hand-delivery process satisfied DOL regulations, which require that the process be reasonably calculated to ensure that recipients receive SPDs and likely to result in full distribution. The employer had denied an employee’s claim for LTD benefits on the grounds that the employee failed to apply within the plan’s required timeframe. The employee sued claiming, among other things, that he never received the plan’s SPD that would have informed him of the application deadline. Read more

An employee’s spouse sued the insurer of her cancer insurance policy in state court after it refused to pay for medical treatment she had received. The insurer removed the case to federal court, arguing that her claim was preempted by ERISA. The spouse argued that the case belonged in state court because the policy fit within the regulatory safe harbor that excepts from ERISA certain voluntary insurance arrangements. At issue was whether the policy, which was offered through a cafeteria plan, fell outside the voluntary plan safe harbor because the employer had endorsed it. Read more

The law in many states provides that reimbursement to a plan from tort settlements or judgments will not be allowed unless the plan participant is “made whole.” Certainly, the plan participant is not made whole if the settlement or judgment is less than the amount of benefits paid. But even if the settlement or judgment id greater than the amount of benefits paid by the plan, the plan participant may not be made whole by it. Sometimes, it’s hard to draw a clear line to determine when a plan participant is or is not made whole. Read more

When it is clear that the tort settlement proceeds are held in a separate account and the plan clearly provides for 100-percent reimbursement, the fact that the plan beneficiary is a minor child will not preclude the plan’s entitlement to reimbursement. The case is Iowa Health System, Inc. v. Graham, 2009 WL 2222780 (C.D. Ill., July 23, 2009). Read more

Well drafted subrogation provisions will state that any allocation of tort settlement or judgments to reimburse non-medical losses – such as earnings lost – will not be binding on the plan. If that is stated, settlements or judgments won’t preclude the plan participant’s obligation to reimburse the plan. However, that’s not the necessarily the case when Medicare seeks to be reimbursed for the medical benefits that it paid. Indeed, contrary to the usual approach taken by privately sponsored health plans, the Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) law on which Medicare’s right to reimbursement is based does not contain such a provision. Read more

The fact that a stop-loss insurer reimbursed a plan for some of the benefits the plan does not affect the plan’s ability to seek recovery from the participant’s tort settlement with a third-party tortfeasor. A federal court in Idaho upheld that outcome, allowing the plan to assert an equitable lien. The plan was covered by a stop-loss policy with a $50,000 stop-loss trigger. The participant incurred nearly $125,000 in health expenses and the plan received nearly $75,000 from the stop-loss insurer. The plan sought assets from the settlement. Clear plan provisions stated it had a right to the settlement funds. The court rejected arguments that stop-loss insurance makes a self-funded employee benefit plan insured for the purpose of ERISA preemption. The court concluded that the participant signed away her right to invoke the make-whole rule, because the plan specifically provided that it was entitled to reimbursement of the benefits paid even if the plan participant was not made whole. Read more

Plan’s subrogation and reimbursement language may actually thwart their ability to recover from tort settlement proceeds benefits they paid. It is important for plan language to ensure that its recovery claim is limited to settlement proceeds. In one such case, a health plan did not identify a particular fund from which the reimbursement should be paid and it failed to say that the recovery was limited to third-party settlement proceeds. Because of the imprecise drafting, the court could assume the plan was trying to recover from the plan participant’s general assets. That created the possibility that a member could receive a recovery from a third party that was less than the benefit paid by the plan but would still have to repay the plan in full. As a result, the court found it impossible to award the recovery. Read more