<?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; 7th</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.passionforsubro.com/category/federal-circuits/7th/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>Court Allows HR Staffer’s Comment to Support FMLA Discrimination Claim</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/federal-circuits/7th/court-allows-hr-staffer%e2%80%99s-comment-to-support-fmla-discrimination-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/federal-circuits/7th/court-allows-hr-staffer%e2%80%99s-comment-to-support-fmla-discrimination-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:00:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cmonfils</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[7th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FMLA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=8417</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Top brass may have the last word when it comes to adverse actions. But even comments made by lower-level managers — including those in human resources — may be used to support the kind of discrimination claim that often follows in the highly emotional climate following a layoff. A recent appeals court ruling in a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/federal-circuits/7th/court-allows-hr-staffer%e2%80%99s-comment-to-support-fmla-discrimination-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stop-loss Insurance and Self-insuring: Will Regulators Ever Understand It?</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/stop-loss-insurance-and-self-insuring-will-regulators-ever-understand-it/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/stop-loss-insurance-and-self-insuring-will-regulators-ever-understand-it/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2011 00:50:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cmonfils</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[3rd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[5th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[7th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[9th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DOL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HHS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PPACA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Self-Funding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stop Loss]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=7856</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Employer’s Guide to Self-Insuring Health Benefits Thompson Publishing                  November 2011      Vol. 19, No. 2 The federal agencies in charge of implementing health reform and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) keep saying stop-loss policies with low attachment points mean an employer-sponsored health plan is really not self-funded. Contributing Editor Adam V. Russo and Attorney [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/stop-loss-insurance-and-self-insuring-will-regulators-ever-understand-it/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Plan Can’t Sue to Recover Benefits Paid When Disputed Bills Were for a Non-beneficiary</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/plan-can%e2%80%99t-sue-to-recover-benefits-paid-when-disputed-bills-were-for-a-non-beneficiary/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/plan-can%e2%80%99t-sue-to-recover-benefits-paid-when-disputed-bills-were-for-a-non-beneficiary/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:15:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cmonfils</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[7th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Overpayment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=7825</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Employer’s Guide to Self-Insuring Health Benefits        October 2011 &#124; Vol. 19, No. 1 A federal appeals court lined up with two lower court rulings in deciding that a hospital and a physician practice were not liable under ERISA to return money to a  plan that mistakenly paid claims for a plan member’s ineligible daughter.  The [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/plan-can%e2%80%99t-sue-to-recover-benefits-paid-when-disputed-bills-were-for-a-non-beneficiary/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ERISA-Seventh Circuit Rules That A Plan&#8217;s Notice Of Benefit Denial Did Not Comply With ERISA</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/erisa-seventh-circuit-rules-that-a-plans-notice-of-benefit-denial-did-not-comply-with-erisa/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/erisa-seventh-circuit-rules-that-a-plans-notice-of-benefit-denial-did-not-comply-with-erisa/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2011 01:35:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cmonfils</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[7th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=7190</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[www.erisalawyerblog.com  August 24, 2011 By Stanley D. Baum  In Kough v. Teamsters&#8217; Local 301 Pension Plan, No. 10-2128 (7th Cir. 2011) (Nonprecedential Opinion), the plaintiff had suffered a disability, and then returned to work in 2005. He soon (in that year) suffered a heart attack and abandoned his attempt to work. He filed a claim [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/erisa-seventh-circuit-rules-that-a-plans-notice-of-benefit-denial-did-not-comply-with-erisa/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Steffens v. BlueCross Blue Shield of Illinois, 2011 WI 60 (July 8, 2011).</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/made-whole-rule/steffens-v-bluecross-blue-shield-of-illinois-2011-wi-60-july-8-2011/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/made-whole-rule/steffens-v-bluecross-blue-shield-of-illinois-2011-wi-60-july-8-2011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:56:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cmonfils</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[7th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Made Whole Rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wisconsin]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=6884</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Facts:  Participant of an ERISA covered Plan had an accident and filed an action in Wisconsin wherein he named the Plan as a defendant and disputed Plan’s rights under the Made Whole Rule.  Plan then filed a cross claim against defendant parties and a counter claim against member asserting made whole inapplicable due to plan [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/made-whole-rule/steffens-v-bluecross-blue-shield-of-illinois-2011-wi-60-july-8-2011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Estoppel Claims Can Prevail Over Unambiguous Plan Language</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/plan-language/estoppel-claims-can-prevail-over-unambiguous-plan-language/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/plan-language/estoppel-claims-can-prevail-over-unambiguous-plan-language/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 May 2011 14:29:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cmonfils</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[6th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[7th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plan Language]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=6408</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[www.healthplanlaw.com    Roy Harmon III  May 12, 2011  Defendants argue that the first amended complaint is deficient because, with the exception of Count Four, which is identified as a claim for benefits pursuant to §1132(a)(1)(B), plaintiff fails to specify the ERISA statutory provisions upon which her claims are based. This argument is not well taken. A plaintiff [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/plan-language/estoppel-claims-can-prevail-over-unambiguous-plan-language/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Judge Affirms ICA&#8217;s Standing to Pursue ERISA Claims</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/provider-reimbursement/judge-affirms-icas-standing-to-pursue-erisa-claims/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/provider-reimbursement/judge-affirms-icas-standing-to-pursue-erisa-claims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:35:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cmonfils</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[7th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Illinois]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Provider Reimbursement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=5533</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[www.chiroeco.com March 14, 2011 — The International Chiropractors Association (ICA) announced today that its claims challenging the overpayment recovery practices of various Blue Cross Blue Shield entities were upheld by Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the United Stated District Court in Chicago, IL, in Pennsylvania Chiropractic Association, et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/provider-reimbursement/judge-affirms-icas-standing-to-pursue-erisa-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Contractual Deference Standard Upheld In Favor Of Non-Fiduciary</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/contractual-deference-standard-upheld-in-favor-of-non-fiduciary/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/contractual-deference-standard-upheld-in-favor-of-non-fiduciary/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2011 16:18:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cmonfils</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[7th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[8th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=5419</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[www.healthplanlaw.com February 21, 2011 • Roy Harmon III In Comrie v. IPSCO (7th. Cir. 2/18/11) the Seventh Circuit considered whether a discretion-conferring clause in a SERP plan document should be applied when the plan administrator is not a fiduciary. Noting a difference of opinion on the issue, the Seventh Circuit, via Judge Easterbrook, saw the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/contractual-deference-standard-upheld-in-favor-of-non-fiduciary/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mondry v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/mondry-v-american-family-mutual-insurance-co/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/mondry-v-american-family-mutual-insurance-co/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 20:00:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[7th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=3521</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/mondry-v-american-family-mutual-insurance-co/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pollitt v. Health Care Service Corp</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/claims-procedures/pollitt-v-health-care-service-corp/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/claims-procedures/pollitt-v-health-care-service-corp/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 18:48:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[7th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claims Procedures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claims Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Exclusion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=3501</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Juli Pollitt, a federal employee, had health insurance administered by Health Care Service Corp. (HCSC). In July 2007, HCSC stopped paying claims submitted on behalf of Pollitt’s son Michael and began trying to collect from health care providers any payments made on Michael’s behalf since 2003. According to HCSC, it did this because the Department [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/claims-procedures/pollitt-v-health-care-service-corp/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

