Archive for the ‘Plan Language’ Category

Diamond Crystal Brands, Inc. v. Wallace, 531 F.Supp.2d 1366 (N.D. Ga.2008)

After the negligent medical care and consequential death of Deborah Hayes, the Estate and her daughter Tamara Hayes pursued a wrongful death claim against the hospital.  In Georgia State Court plaintiffs settled for $900,000, of which $837,000 went to Tamara Hayes and $63,000 to the Estate of Deborah Hayes.

Prior to Deborah Hayes’s death, her employer, Diamond Crystal provided $261,863.58 in medical benefits related to the medical malpractice.  After the settlement, Diamond Crystal sought reimbursement of claims paid. Read more

Cooper v. Premera Blue Cross, Slip Copy, 2008 WL 2180148 (W.D.Wash.) (May 23, 2008) addresses a risk often overlooked by plan participants when debating over their benefit plan’s right of reimbursement from other liable insurance carriers.

Cooper suffered multiple injuries while he was a passenger involved in an ATV accident and applied for benefits through his own auto carrier, Allied Insurance, because the driver’s vehicle was uninsured.  Cooper received $64,200 for medical expenses and lost wages through his PIP and UM coverage. Read more

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

The Texas Made-Whole Rule, adopted in Ortiz v. Great Southern Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., no longer applies to cases where the Plan disclaims the rule and requires full reimbursement in the plan document. 597 S.W.2d 342, (Tex. 1980). In the Ortiz case the insurance carrier relied upon arguments made in equity. The court held that health plans do not have an equitable right to recovery until the plan beneficiary is fully compensated. Id. Read more

In this case, an employee of a company with a self funded ERISA plan was receiving benefits due to her disabled status. The TPA hired a physician to re-examine the employee, and based on her diagnosis, terminated benefits. The physician determined that the employee could perform sedentary work, which meant she was no longer “disabled” in accordance with the terms of the plan. The TPA had, after the physician’s diagnosis was complete, obtained two more evaluations. The three tests (IME, Functional Capacity Evaluation, and Employability Assessment) were all performed by different parties, and all supported the plan’s decision. The employee, meanwhile, did not argue that the tests should be ignored, and instead presented a letter from her treating physician, diagnosing her as disabled, but lacking an explanation or evidence to support the designation. Upon review, the court found in the plan’s favor. Read more

An employee left her job due to carpal tunnel syndrome. She began receiving benefits under her employer’s self funded ERISA plan. The syndrome became worse, and the employee underwent surgery. She exhausted her short term benefits and applied for long term benefits under the same plan. The plan denied the benefits, and the employee sued. The court applied a de novo standard of review, meaning it examined the evidence from an entirely objective perspective seeking to determine if a reasonable trier of fact would find one way or the other. Read more

This case arose from a Plan’s failure to add an employee’s dependents to an ERISA welfare benefit plan. As a benefit of employment, the employer offered its employees health insurance. Under the Plan, the employer was both a “participant” and the “Plan Administrator.” Employees were instructed to direct their inquiries about the Plan to their employer, which acted as the general intermediary between its employees and the Insurer. Read more