The Golden Gate Restaurant Association asked the Supreme Court to vacate the 9th Circuit panel’s stay of a district court decision invalidating the ordinance. The requested stay would prevent enforcement of the ordinance during the period leading up to a decision by the Ninth Circuit on the matter. Read more
An employee health and welfare plan appealed a Northern District of Georgia decision in favor of defendants: a minor, a conservator of the minor, and a bank, in its action seeking to enforce reimbursement provisions of its ERISA Plan. The insured settled a personal injury suit and received funds from a liable third party. The Plan, which had previously paid the minor insured’s medical expenses, included provisions in the Plan Document identifying funds paid by the Plan as separate from the insured’s assets, and asserting a trust and equitable lien over settlement proceeds.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Plan properly sought under ERISA § 502(a)(3) equitable restitution of a specifically identifiable fund in possession of defendants, since it asserted title and right to possession of the particular property, identified as being in the hands of the conservator. The money held in trust by the conservator had been identified as belonging in good conscience to the fiduciary by virtue of the plan’s terms, and the money could be clearly traced to a particular fund in defendants’ possession. The fact that the conservator held the funds as a third party did not defeat the fiduciary’s claim because the settlement funds were intact and constituted an identifiable res that could be restored to its rightful recipient. SEE ENTIRE CASE
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas recently presided over a case involving a plan’s denial of claims due to a lack of signed subrogation agreement. Don Burgett, Et. Al. v. MEBA Medical and Benefits Plan, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70934, (September 25, 2007). The Plan in this case lost, and the court determined the Plan’s conditioning payment of claims on the signing of a subrogation agreement was not supported by the summary plan document (”SPD”). The court held that the language of the SPD controls and additional agreements cannot create new rights for the Plan. Read more
On June 18, 2007, the United States Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to hear the appeal of this Fourth Circuit case. Their ruling will once again affect the application of ERISA. Plaintiff (employee LaRue) alleged that the administrator had failed to invest his funds as instructed, resulting in a loss. He sought monetary rewards, and both the District Court and Court of Appeals determined that the remedy he sought fell outside the scope of “equitable relief” § 1132(a)(3) of ERISA authorized. Money damages were the classic form of legal relief, absent from the list of equitable remedies available under § 1132(a)(3). Plaintiff could not recover under an equitable restitution theory since he did not allege that funds owed to him were in defendants’ possession but instead that the funds never materialized. Read more
The Southern District Court of Indiana held on February 8, 2007 in South Central Indiana School Trust v. Virginia Poyner, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9368, that “in Sereboff, the Supreme Court held that Great-West did not apply to a situation where the third-party proceeds were segregated and hence “specifically identifiable.” Sereboff, 126 S.Ct. at 1874. Rather, such a claim for recovery was for enforcement of an equitable lien. Id. at 1874-75. And, going a step further, the Court said that where, as here, there is an equitable lien by agreement, there is no necessity that the funds even be specifically traced. Id. at 1875. According to the Court, the effort to recover such an agreed preexisting lien is equitable in nature.” Read more
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 failed. Read more
Recently, the Eastern District Court of Michigan held in Citizens Insurance Company of America v. Pitney Bowes Software Systems Employee Medical & Health Care Service Corp., 2007 WL 713144 (E.D. Mich 2007) that where the Plan document excluded claims covered by automotive insurance in its claim exclusions section, and asserted a right to coordinate benefits with the same types of insurance, these provisions were contradictory and cancelled each other out. This is why The Phia Group matches exclusion language with coordination of benefits and subrogation language, and advises the use of language interpretation provisions as well. Read more
In Cheryl Street v. Ingalls Memorial Hospital, (2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 18643), the Northern District Court of Illinois held on March 15, 2007 that just as a Plan must identify funds prior to seeking equitable relief in Federal Court, so too must relief sought by participants be specifically identifiable. In one case, decided by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, a group of employee Plan Participants brought their Plan Administrator to court for handling their assets in an irresponsible manner. In Eichorn, et al. v. AT&T Corp., et al., 484 F.3d 644, (May 2, 2007), the Court held that while ERISA makes it illegal for a Plan Administrator to prevent the attainment of rights provided by the Plan, actions that lessen the value of the rights are not so prohibited. As such, in a case like this one, the only relief available was in the form of monetary awards and back pay, which is not “equitable relief” for purposes of Federal jurisdiction. Read more
Recently, in the state of Washington, a law was passed that prohibits workplace discrimination based upon sexual orientation. When an employee protested the denial of health care coverage to her partner by her employer’s self funded ERISA plan, she brought the matter to court. The court in turn determined that the law could not be enforced against private employers with self funded plans, as it conflicted with ERISA. Read more
Section 502(a)(3)(B) of ERISA permits a fiduciary to bring a civil action “to obtain equitable relief to enforce the terms of the plan”. To obtain this “equitable relief,” the basis for the fiduciary’s claim and the relief it seeks must be equitable in nature. Importantly, a fiduciary cannot seek to impose personal liability, as that would be a legal remedy. The Policy in this case required repayment of an overpayment of benefits that resulted when a claimant received benefits in the amount of $ 19,612. The Plan requested reimbursement and the beneficiary refused, stating that she no longer had any of the funds. Read more