<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Passion for Subro &#187; 10th</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.passionforsubro.com/category/federal-circuits/10/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com</link>
	<description>The personal subrogation blog of Attorney Adam V. Russo.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:03:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The Fact That TPA’s Duties Were Non-fiduciary Frees It From ERISA Allegations</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/the-fact-that-tpa%e2%80%99s-duties-were-non-fiduciary-frees-it-from-erisa-allegations/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/the-fact-that-tpa%e2%80%99s-duties-were-non-fiduciary-frees-it-from-erisa-allegations/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 01:59:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cmonfils</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[10th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fiduciary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Third Party Administrators]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=8302</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Employer’s Guide to Self-Insuring Health Benefits    December 2011 &#124; Vol. 19, No.3 In a lawsuit involving denied gastric repair services, a third-party administrator (TPA) argued its way out of an ERISA claim for denied benefits and alleging fiduciary abuse, after the court agreed it only did what the plan sponsor told it in documents, e-mails [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/the-fact-that-tpa%e2%80%99s-duties-were-non-fiduciary-frees-it-from-erisa-allegations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>State-law Claims Proceed Despite Earlier ERISA Award, Due to Changed Participant Status</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/state-law-claims-proceed-despite-earlier-erisa-award-due-to-changed-participant-status/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/state-law-claims-proceed-despite-earlier-erisa-award-due-to-changed-participant-status/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 May 2011 14:16:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cmonfils</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[10th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Preemption]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=6377</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[www.myhealthguide.com MyHealthGuide Source: Todd Leeuwenburgh, Editor, Employer Health Benefits, Thompson Publishing Group, 5/4/2011, www.thompson.com Case: Hansen v. Harper Excavating, 2011 WL 1379821 (10th Cir., April 13, 2011) Fine distinctions about an employee&#8217;s status as a non-ERISA beneficiary allowed his state-law case &#8212; even though he had already prevailed on an ERISA complaint based on closely [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/state-law-claims-proceed-despite-earlier-erisa-award-due-to-changed-participant-status/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ERISA-Tenth Circuit Determines That Plaintiff Has No Standing To Bring Suit Under ERISA, So That His Claim Cannot Be Removed To Federal Court</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/erisa-tenth-circuit-determines-that-plaintiff-has-no-standing-to-bring-suit-under-erisa-so-that-his-claim-cannot-be-removed-to-federal-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/erisa-tenth-circuit-determines-that-plaintiff-has-no-standing-to-bring-suit-under-erisa-so-that-his-claim-cannot-be-removed-to-federal-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2011 14:24:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cmonfils</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[10th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=6251</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[www.erisalawyerblog.com  By Stanley D. Baum on April 21, 2011  In Hansen v. Harper Excavating, Inc., No. 08-4089 (10th Cir. 2011), the plaintiff, Jeffery Hansen (&#8220;Hansen&#8221;), had worked for the defendant, Harper Excavating, Inc. (&#8220;Harper&#8221;), for six months beginning in 2003. During this time, he attempted to enroll in Harper&#8217;s health insurance plan (the &#8220;Plan&#8221;). The [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/erisa-tenth-circuit-determines-that-plaintiff-has-no-standing-to-bring-suit-under-erisa-so-that-his-claim-cannot-be-removed-to-federal-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ohio Court Affirms Summary Judgment for Stop Loss Carrier in Disclosure Case</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/stop-loss/ohio-court-affirms-summary-judgment-for-stop-loss-carrier-in-disclosure-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/stop-loss/ohio-court-affirms-summary-judgment-for-stop-loss-carrier-in-disclosure-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:35:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[10th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ohio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stop Loss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Welfare Benefit Plans]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=3912</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[MyHealthGuide, www.myhealthguide.com By Tom Croft, Esq. of King &#38; Croft LLP, www.StopLossLaw.com Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. City of Canton, Ohio, et al., No. 09AP-939, CPC No. 07CVH-08-11779 in The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, 8/31/2010). Court&#8217;s Opinion Mr. Croft&#8217;s comment: The myth that a stop loss carrier cannot win a disclosure dispute [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/stop-loss/ohio-court-affirms-summary-judgment-for-stop-loss-carrier-in-disclosure-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Insurance Now Subject to Federal Jurisdiction</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/us-vs-frost/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/us-vs-frost/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:17:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[10th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=1916</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8211; On December 9, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, affirmed the federal government&#8217;s position that private insurance companies are &#8220;plans&#8221; 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 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/us-vs-frost/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Family Caught in Health Dispute</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/family-caught-in-health-dispute/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/family-caught-in-health-dispute/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:03:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[10th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/family-caught-in-health-dispute/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Joe Hanel of The Durango Herald, www.durangoherald.com DENVER &#8211; Stephen and Naomi Dobbs have some of the same complaints about stonewalling by their health-insurance company as many people. But when the Durango couple sued Anthem Blue Cross &#38; Blue Shield, they got caught between two complex areas of the law &#8211; health insurance and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/family-caught-in-health-dispute/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Equitable Relief</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/fiduciary-liability/equitable-relief-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/fiduciary-liability/equitable-relief-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:54:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[10th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[7th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[8th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fiduciary Liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plan Language]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Summary Plan Description]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=1273</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Administrative Committee of the Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gamboa, 479 F.3d 538 (8th Cir. 2007), an ERISA plan administrator brought suit seeking equitable reimbursement from a plan participant who had received a settlement from a tortfeasor. Although the reimbursement provision was contained in an SPD for a health plan, the employer had no formal [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/fiduciary-liability/equitable-relief-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Plain Meaning Rules</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/summary-plan-description/plain-meeting-rules/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/summary-plan-description/plain-meeting-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:35:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[10th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Summary Plan Description]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/plain-meeting-rules/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Hollingshead v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oklahoma, 2007 WL 475832, 39 EBC (BNA) 2732 (10th Cir. 2007), that when a Plan states it will pay for only one organ transplant, the Plan may exclude charges incurred for the replacement of a previously transplanted organ that has [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/summary-plan-description/plain-meeting-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

