Archive for the ‘Preemption’ Category

The parents of a minor child sued their health plan insurer when it denied their daughter’s claims for benefits.  The parents argued that the insurer failed to comply with a state external review law for insurers, which required an independent review process for denied claims. The insurer asked the court to dismiss the claim, arguing that the state external review law was preempted by ERISA. Read more

ERISA preempted an Illinois state law outlawing any claim on a workers’ compensation award, because the law related to benefits plans regulated by ERISA, a federal trial court decided. As a result, an employer may seek reimbursement of group health plan funds from workers’ compensation awards. The health plan paid the expenses before a determination was made that the claims were work related. The court determined that the settlements included reimbursement for health expenses that were paid by the plan. At least one of the awards was worded to assert that it was not a payment for health benefits, but the judge said that was an effort to stop a recovery attempt. Read more

In the matter of Sgro v. Danone Waters of North America, Inc., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 13973 (9th Cir. Jul. 2, 2008), an employee - Mitchell Sgro - applied for benefits from his employer’s ERISA Plan.  He incurred $412.00 in copying fees, in the process of supplying documentation and medical records to his employer as part of his claim. Read more

Many involved in the administration of ERISA Plans do not realize that some state insurance law is preempted even when a fully insured ERISA Plan is involved.

In Spellman  v. United Parcel Service, 540 F. Supp.2d 237 (D.C. Maine 2008), the Court addressed an issue of enforcing Maine’s  workers’ compensation statutes with regards to health plans under ERISA. Read more

Magellan Services v. Highmark Life Insurance Company, - N.W.2d –, 2008 WL 2221979 (Iowa) (May 30, 2008) brought forward a dispute about coordination of benefits against an ERISA preemption of state regulation of a self-funded health plan based upon the presence of stop loss coverage. Read more

In July of 2006 the San Francisco Health Care Security Ordinance (”the Ordinance”) allowing the city to mandate employers with more than 50 employees to pay a fee to help cover their employee health care costs was unanimously passed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. 

On December 26, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, ruled in favor of The Golden Gate Restaurant Association’s (GGRA) application, contending that ERISA preempted the Ordinance.  Read more

ERISA did not preempt a Louisiana Department of Insurance directive that limits insurer’s subrogation and reimbursement rights to cases where covered individuals have been “made whole”, the 5^th U.S. Circuit court of Appeals ruled in Benefit Recovery Inc. v. Donelon, 2008 WL 642972 (5^th Cir. March 11,2008). Read more

Just when it appears that a well-drafted subrogation and reimbursement provision of an ERISA group health plan takes precedent over state-law restrictions on the plan’s recovery, we find that the Supreme Court of Mississippi has ruled that ERISA does not preempt a state law that requires approval of a Mississippi court regarding the allocation of a minor’s settlement proceeds from a tort claim. The case is In re Guardianship of Danielle Holmes, 2007 WL 2792491 (Sup. Ct., Miss., Sept. 27, 2007).

Rashan Danielle Holmes, a minor, was injured in an auto accident. She was covered under her mother’s employer’s self-insured ERISA plan, which included a well drafted subrogation and reimbursement provision. The plan made an advance payment of about $46,000 toward her medical expenses. Her claim against a third party was settled for $750,000, the plan asserted a subrogation lien against the proceeds and the amount advanced pending settlement of its claim for reimbursement. Read more

Recently, in the wake of last August’s horrific bridge collapse on I-35 in Minnesota over the Mississippi River, state lawmakers in Minnesota are attempting to establish a recovery fund to ensure that victims in the disaster receive compensation for their losses. The problem is that a great majority of the victims had their medical coverage provided by ERISA governed welfare benefit plans. The politicians do not want any compensation to reach the hands of the insurance companies, who seek reimbursement through their subrogation provisions.State lawmakers are thus working on legislation to ensure that survivors’ insurers won’t be able to claim any of the money that insureds may receive in settlement.  Due to rising health care costs, many of the health plans involved are increasingly laying claim to the money patients have won in settlement through subrogation action. Read more

In the case of Bauhaus USA, Inc. v. Lillie Regina Holmes Copeland, et. al., 2007 Miss. LEXIS 545 (September 27, 2007), a self-funded Plan coming under the purview of ERISA sought reimbursement of claims it had paid on behalf of a minor child. The court took possession of funds in order to create a trust and use the funds to protect the minor. 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