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 [...]
Category: 2nd, ERISA, MetLife v. Glenn, PPACA, Summary Plan Description, Supreme Court |
No Comments »
Tags:
Adam V. Russo | July 9, 2010
In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Glenn, the Second Circuit has reassessed its standard of review governing cases that challenge an ERISA plan administrator’s decision to deny disability benefits in cases where the administrator has a conflict of interest because it has the discretionary authority to determine the validity of the employee’s claim [...]
Category: 2nd, Claims Procedures, Claims Review, Conflict of Interest, MetLife v. Glenn |
No Comments »
Tags:
Adam V. Russo | June 17, 2010
From the Bench; By John H. Eggerstsen, Esq. and Michael Friedman, Esq.
This month’s From the Bench will review just one case-the U.S. Supreem Court’s most recent ERISA decision, Conkwright v. Frommert, No. 08-810 (April 21,2010). Amidst all the heady intensity surrounding the recently passed health care reform legislation, it is salutary perhaps to realize that [...]
Category: 2nd, ERISA, Federal Circuits, Supreme Court |
No Comments »
Tags:
Adam V. Russo | May 24, 2010
On April 21, 2010, in the case of Conkright v. Frommert, 559 U.S. ___ (2010), the United States Supreme Court held that where a plan administrator is granted deference in exercising its discretionary authority, and the administrator subsequently issued an incorrect interpretation related to the plan document, absent malice, the plan administrator is not disqualified [...]
Category: 2nd, ERISA, Federal Circuits, Supreme Court |
No Comments »
Tags:
Adam V. Russo | May 4, 2010
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Conkright v. Frommert decision is an important confirmation of a plan administrator’s authority to interpret the terms of a benefit plan and serves as a reminder for plan sponsors to review the terms of their benefit plans to ensure that they contain sufficient discretionary language.
Category: 2nd, ERISA, Supreme Court |
No Comments »
Tags:
Adam V. Russo | July 28, 2009
In MacLeod v. Proctor & Gamble Disability Benefit Plan, 460 F. Supp. 2d 340 (D. Conn. 2006) the administrator denied the participant’s application for benefits on the grounds that the claimed disability resulted from the participant’s prior military service and therefore was excluded from coverage. At oral argument, the administrator admitted that its decision was [...]
Category: 2nd, Exclusion, Plan Language |
No Comments »
Tags:
Adam V. Russo | March 20, 2009
from The Advocate Staff of The Connecticut Post
Updated: 03/07/2009 08:09:09 AM EST
It’s rare for the U.S. Supreme Court to opine on retirement plan beneficiary designations, so when it does, it’s newsworthy. A few weeks ago, the court decided a case, Kennedy v. DuPont Savings and Investment Plan, that involved whether a form as benign as [...]
Category: 2nd, ERISA |
No Comments »
Tags:
Adam V. Russo | January 9, 2009
Champion v. Black & Decker Inc., 2008 WL 5377692 (4th Cir. 2008)
McCauley v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., 2008 WL 5377680 (2nd Cir. 2008)
Category: 2nd, 4th |
No Comments »
Tags:
Adam V. Russo | January 5, 2009
McCauley v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 26094 (2nd Cir.) (December 24, 2008) is an important post MetLife v. Glenn decision in the Second Circuit. The Court found First Unum’s past history as being a factor in evaluating a conflict of interest.
The Court mentioned the fact that First Unum had a [...]
Category: 2nd |
No Comments »
Tags:
Adam V. Russo | June 19, 2008
U.S. District court Judge Harold Baer has ruled that Allianz S.E. is primarily entitled to recoveries from third parties found liable for damages from the Sept.11, 2001 terrorist attacks. World Trade Center leaseholder Silverstein Properties Inc. challenged the ruling claiming that the $433 million settlement of the $3.55 billion property limit from Allianz S.E. last [...]
Category: 2nd, Made Whole Rule |
No Comments »
Tags:
Adam V. Russo | April 21, 2008
The fact that an individual had medical treatment for a condition before an accident and subsequently suffered an injury that required additional treatment should not defeat a plan’s right to reimbursement for benefits paid on account of the treatment resulting from the accident. A U.S. District Court reached that conclusion in Schaffer v. Mancini, 2007 [...]
Category: 2nd |
No Comments »
Tags:
