<?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; 8th</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.passionforsubro.com/category/federal-circuits/8th/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>Amicus Committee Update</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/amicus-committee-update-4/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/amicus-committee-update-4/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2011 18:22:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cmonfils</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[11th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[3rd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[8th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[9th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reimbursement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=7905</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[THIRD CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT ERISA PLANS REIMBURSEMENT CLAIMS ARE SUBJECT TO EQUITABLE DEFENSES AND LIMITATIONS On November 16, 2011, the Third Circuit held in US Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen, that an ERISA plan’s claims for reimbursement under ERISA §502(a)(3) are subject to equitable limitations and defenses.      The matter involved a self-funded ERISA plan which had [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/amicus-committee-update-4/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>One-Person Individually-Negotiated Employment Agreement Is Not an ERISA Plan</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/one-person-individually-negotiated-employment-agreement-is-not-an-erisa-plan/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/one-person-individually-negotiated-employment-agreement-is-not-an-erisa-plan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:50:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cmonfils</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[8th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=7563</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[www.benefitlink.com (From the October 10, 2011 issue of Deloitte&#8216;s Washington Bulletin, a periodic update of legal and regulatory developments relating to Employee Benefits.) A recent Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals case illustrates the complexity of determining whether an employment agreement is an ERISA plan, and the impact of that decision on the employee&#8217;s ability to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/one-person-individually-negotiated-employment-agreement-is-not-an-erisa-plan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>One-person Employment Contract Not an ERISA Plan: Eighth Circuit</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/one-person-employment-contract-not-an-erisa-plan-eighth-circuit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/one-person-employment-contract-not-an-erisa-plan-eighth-circuit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 00:12:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cmonfils</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[8th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=7390</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[www.uslf.practicallaw.com Resource type: Legal Update: Archive Status: Published on 15-Aug-2011 Jurisdiction: USA In Dakota, Minnesota &#38; Eastern Railroad Corporation v. Schieffer, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that a one-person employment contract is not a plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). However, the court held that a federal court [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/one-person-employment-contract-not-an-erisa-plan-eighth-circuit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Eighth Circuit Holds Mental Health Treatment Limitation Inapplicable</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/federal-circuits/8th/eighth-circuit-holds-mental-health-treatment-limitation-inapplicable/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/federal-circuits/8th/eighth-circuit-holds-mental-health-treatment-limitation-inapplicable/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2011 22:18:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cmonfils</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[8th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mental Health Parity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=5458</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[www.healthplanlaw.com       March 4, 2011 • “ . . . [I]n order for Principal to reasonably deny S.W.’s hospital charges, substantial evidence had to support its determination that the primary focus of her hospitalization was mental health treatment, i.e., treatment designed to alter her behavior. While there is certainly evidence that mental health treatment was [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/federal-circuits/8th/eighth-circuit-holds-mental-health-treatment-limitation-inapplicable/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>Scroggins v. Red Lobster</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/subrogation/scroggins-v-red-lobster/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/subrogation/scroggins-v-red-lobster/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:23:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[8th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Missouri]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Subrogation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Welfare Benefit Plans]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=3928</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Summary State appeals court in Missouri affirms trial court ruling &#8212; Scroggins was injured in a trip-and-fall at a R.Lobster. Her employer’s (St. John&#8217;s Hospital, a subsidiary of Sisters of Mercy) self-funded plan covered her health expenses. Also, she sued the restaurant and extracted a settlement. The plan had subro clause up to the full [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/subrogation/scroggins-v-red-lobster/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>From the Bench</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/from-the-bench-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/from-the-bench-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 14:24:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[8th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[9th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorneys' Fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fiduciary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Summary Plan Description]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=3887</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[SIIA, www.siia.org By Thomas A. Croft, Esq. I. The Supreme Court Clarifies ERISA Attorney Fee Provision We have two reasons for reviewing Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 130 S. Ct. 2149 (2010). First, it is the latest ERISA decision from the Supreme Court cases define ERISA jurisprudence, they cannot be ignored. Second, the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/from-the-bench-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pichoff v. QHG of Springdale, Inc.</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/pichoff-v-qhg-of-springdale-inc/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/pichoff-v-qhg-of-springdale-inc/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 19:50:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[8th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=3511</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The special administrator of the estate of a deceased employee, who was an ERISA plan participant, brought action against the employee’s former employer for breach of fiduciary duty seeking to recover the amount of the employee’s life insurance coverage before his first medical leave of absence, which lapsed when the employee was terminated without notice. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/pichoff-v-qhg-of-springdale-inc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Chronister v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/standing/chronister-v-unum-life-insurance-company-of-america/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/standing/chronister-v-unum-life-insurance-company-of-america/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 18:46:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[8th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conflict of Interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MetLife v. Glenn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Standings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=3499</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sandra Chronister was employed as a nurse at Baptist Health in Arkansas. In 1995, she was injured in a car accident, and thereafter sought disability benefits under Baptist Health’s long-term disability plan, which was insured and administered by Unum Life Insurance Co. of America. Unum initially granted her application for disability benefits. At Unum’s urging, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/standing/chronister-v-unum-life-insurance-company-of-america/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>First Circuit Permits § 502(a)(3) Recoupment Claim Despite Failure To Identify “Specific Account” Holding Funds</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/first-circuit-permits-%c2%a7-502a3-recoupment-claim-despite-failure-to-identify-%e2%80%9cspecific-account%e2%80%9d-holding-funds/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/first-circuit-permits-%c2%a7-502a3-recoupment-claim-despite-failure-to-identify-%e2%80%9cspecific-account%e2%80%9d-holding-funds/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:38:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[1st]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[8th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=2061</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/first-circuit-permits-%c2%a7-502a3-recoupment-claim-despite-failure-to-identify-%e2%80%9cspecific-account%e2%80%9d-holding-funds/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

