Adam V. Russo | November 13, 2007

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. (more…)

Category: Attorneys' Fees, ERISA, Made Whole Rule, Plan Language, Provider Reimbursement, Summary Plan Description, Texas | 1 Comment »
Tags:

Adam V. Russo | April 4, 2007

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. (more…)

Category: ERISA, Litigation, Plan Language, Standings, Third Party Administrators | No Comments »
Tags:

Adam V. Russo | April 4, 2007

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. (more…)

Category: ERISA, Litigation, Plan Language, Summary Plan Description | No Comments »
Tags:

Adam V. Russo | April 4, 2007

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. (more…)

Category: Claims Procedures, ERISA, Fiduciary Liability, Plan Language, Standings, Third Party Administrators | No Comments »
Tags: