<?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; 2nd</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.passionforsubro.com/category/federal-circuits/2/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>Supreme Court Re-Thinks Equitable Remedies and the Legal Significance of SPDs</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/supreme-court-re-thinks-equitable-remedies-and-the-legal-significance-of-spds-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/supreme-court-re-thinks-equitable-remedies-and-the-legal-significance-of-spds-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2011 19:04:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cmonfils</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2nd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[9th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Summary Plan Description]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=7280</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Self-Insurer                               August 2011 From the Bench                Michael Friedman and John Eggertsen                  The U.S. Supreme Court, in GIGNA Corp v. Amara, et al., 563 U.S., 2011 WL 1936077 (May 16, 2011), revisited, and likely expanded, the scope of equitable remedies available under ERISA § 502 (a)(3). The Court also rejected Plaintiff’s effort to sue [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/supreme-court-re-thinks-equitable-remedies-and-the-legal-significance-of-spds-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court of Appeals: Provider Fails to Distinguish Underpay Case From ERISA Terms</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/court-of-appeals-provider-fails-to-distinguish-underpay-case-from-erisa-terms/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/court-of-appeals-provider-fails-to-distinguish-underpay-case-from-erisa-terms/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 May 2011 13:03:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cmonfils</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2nd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PPOs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=6396</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[www.myhealthguide.com MyHealthGuide Source: Todd Leeuwenburgh, Editor, Employer Health Benefits, Thompson Publishing Group, 5/10/2011, www.thompson.com Case: Montefiore Medical Center v. Teamsters Local 272, 2011 WL 1498823 (2nd Cir., 4/21/2011 A health provider argued that an otherwise valid assignment of benefits is a &#8220;nullity&#8221; whenever care is provided in-network.  While novel, the health provider&#8217;s approach was unsuccessful [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/court-of-appeals-provider-fails-to-distinguish-underpay-case-from-erisa-terms/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Defining &#8216;Essential&#8217; Care  &#8211; Regulators Move to Specify Coverage Under Health Law; Insurers Seek Flexibility.</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/federal-circuits/2/defining-essential-care-regulators-move-to-specify-coverage-under-health-law-insurers-seek-flexibility/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/federal-circuits/2/defining-essential-care-regulators-move-to-specify-coverage-under-health-law-insurers-seek-flexibility/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2011 16:09:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cmonfils</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2nd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care Legislation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=5413</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[www.wsj.com FEBRUARY 28, 2011.    By AVERY JOHNSON Maggie Haslam&#8217;s five-year-old autistic son, Drew, has undergone intense behavioral, physical and speech therapy that helped him learn to dress himself and communicate such concepts as &#8220;over&#8221; and &#8220;under.&#8221; The next big issue for the federal health law as it moves toward implementation is how regulators will define [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/federal-circuits/2/defining-essential-care-regulators-move-to-specify-coverage-under-health-law-insurers-seek-flexibility/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court Reverses Lower Courts and Restores ERISA Plan’s Discretion</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/supreme-court-reverses-lower-courts-and-restores-erisa-plan%e2%80%99s-discretion/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/supreme-court-reverses-lower-courts-and-restores-erisa-plan%e2%80%99s-discretion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 19:53:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2nd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MetLife v. Glenn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PPACA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Summary Plan Description]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=3795</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/supreme-court-reverses-lower-courts-and-restores-erisa-plan%e2%80%99s-discretion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>McCauley v. First Unum Life Insurance Co.</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/claims-procedures/mccauley-v-first-unum-life-insurance-co/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/claims-procedures/mccauley-v-first-unum-life-insurance-co/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 18:38:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2nd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claims Procedures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claims Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conflict of Interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MetLife v. Glenn]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=3496</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/claims-procedures/mccauley-v-first-unum-life-insurance-co/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court Rules on Pension Plan Administration Case</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/supreme-court-rules-on-pension-plan-administration-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/supreme-court-rules-on-pension-plan-administration-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:20:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2nd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=3349</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/supreme-court-rules-on-pension-plan-administration-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Plan Administrator &#8211; One Strike, You&#8217;re Safe</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/plan-administrator-one-strike-youre-safe/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/plan-administrator-one-strike-youre-safe/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 18:30:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2nd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=3274</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/plan-administrator-one-strike-youre-safe/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court Affirms That Plan Administrators’ Interpretations of a Plan Document Must Receive Deference</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/supreme-court-affirms-that-plan-administrators%e2%80%99-interpretations-of-a-plan-document-must-receive-deference/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/supreme-court-affirms-that-plan-administrators%e2%80%99-interpretations-of-a-plan-document-must-receive-deference/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 May 2010 13:04:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2nd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=2958</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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. In Conkright v. Frommert, the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/supreme-court-affirms-that-plan-administrators%e2%80%99-interpretations-of-a-plan-document-must-receive-deference/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Military Exclusion</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/plan-language/military-exclusion/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/plan-language/military-exclusion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:47:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2nd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Exclusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plan Language]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=1266</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In MacLeod v. Proctor &#38; Gamble Disability Benefit Plan, 460 F. Supp. 2d 340 (D. Conn. 2006) the administrator denied the participant&#8217;s application for benefits on the grounds that the claimed disability resulted from the participant&#8217;s prior military service and therefore was excluded from coverage. At oral argument, the administrator admitted that its decision was [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/plan-language/military-exclusion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>U.S. Supreme Court Sides with Divorcee</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/us-supreme-court-sides-with-divorcee/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/us-supreme-court-sides-with-divorcee/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 21:34:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2nd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=762</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[from The Advocate Staff of The Connecticut Post Updated: 03/07/2009 08:09:09 AM EST It&#8217;s rare for the U.S. Supreme Court to opine on retirement plan beneficiary designations, so when it does, it&#8217;s newsworthy. A few weeks ago, the court decided a case, Kennedy v. DuPont Savings and Investment Plan, that involved whether a form as [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/us-supreme-court-sides-with-divorcee/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

