<?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; Preemption</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.passionforsubro.com/category/preemption/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>ERISA Preemption of Michigan Pail Claims Assessment ACT</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/erisa-preemption-of-michigan-pail-claims-assessment-act/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/erisa-preemption-of-michigan-pail-claims-assessment-act/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:57:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cmonfils</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michigan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Preemption]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=8696</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We previously posted regarding Michigan’s Paid Claims Assessment Act (the “Act”) which assesses carriers a 1% surcharge on paid health claims. The Act defines carriers to include group health plan sponsors, along with insurance companies and also assesses third party administrators. Thus, it is likely that group health plan sponsors will end up either paying [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/erisa-preemption-of-michigan-pail-claims-assessment-act/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>State Parity Law Trumps ERISA Plan’s Exclusion, So Case Against Plan Advances</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/state-parity-law-trumps-erisa-plan%e2%80%99s-exclusion-so-case-against-plan-advances/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/state-parity-law-trumps-erisa-plan%e2%80%99s-exclusion-so-case-against-plan-advances/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:21:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cmonfils</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mental Health Parity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PPACA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Preemption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=8477</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Employer’s Guide to Self-Insuring Health Benefits      January 2012 &#124; Vol. 19, No. 4  As illustrated here, ERISA did not preempt the Washington Mental Health Parity Act.  Even though it correctly applied an insured ERISA plan’s coverage restrictions on neurodevelopmental therapy for children over six years old, the administrator’s refusal to pay a 10-year-old dependent’s mental [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/state-parity-law-trumps-erisa-plan%e2%80%99s-exclusion-so-case-against-plan-advances/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Administrator Flubs Stop-loss Claim; State-law Charges on Administrator Not Preempted</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/administrator-flubs-stop-loss-claim-state-law-charges-on-administrator-not-preempted/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/administrator-flubs-stop-loss-claim-state-law-charges-on-administrator-not-preempted/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:14:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cmonfils</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maryland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Preemption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stop Loss]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=8473</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Employer’s Guide to Self-Insuring Health Benefits        January 2012 &#124; Vol. 19, No. 4  A claims administrator lost an attempt to dismiss negligence and breach of contract charges relating to its failure to process and pay a large claim before the final day of a stop-loss policy’s run-out period.  The self-insured Hebrew Home health plan sued [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/administrator-flubs-stop-loss-claim-state-law-charges-on-administrator-not-preempted/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Foils Latest Attempt to Argue Stop-loss Converts Self-funded Plans Into Fully Insured</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/court-foils-latest-attempt-to-argue-stop-loss-converts-self-funded-plans-into-fully-insured/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/court-foils-latest-attempt-to-argue-stop-loss-converts-self-funded-plans-into-fully-insured/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 01:52:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cmonfils</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[3rd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[6th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Preemption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Self-Funding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stop Loss]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=8299</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Employer’s Guide to Self-Insuring Health Benefits      December 2011 &#124; Vol. 19, No.3  The attempted treatment of stop-loss coverage as “health insurance” subject to state insurance law has been a thorn in the sides of self-funded plans seeking to maintain ERISA preemption of state insurance laws.  In Goyen v. Vail Corp., 2011 WL 4479091 (D. Colo., [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/court-foils-latest-attempt-to-argue-stop-loss-converts-self-funded-plans-into-fully-insured/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Pre-Emption Cases On Upcoming Supreme Court Docket</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/preemption/federal-pre-emption-cases-on-upcoming-supreme-court-docket/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/preemption/federal-pre-emption-cases-on-upcoming-supreme-court-docket/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 23:08:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cmonfils</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Preemption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=7517</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[www.businessinsurance.com Few other business cases placed on the docket Oct. 02, 2011      Mark A. Hofmann WASHINGTON—The U.S. Supreme Court opens its October term Monday with a docket unusually light on risk management- and insurance-related cases. In fact, the docket contains relatively few business-related cases, as Robin Conrad, executive vp of the Washington-based National Chamber Litigation [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/preemption/federal-pre-emption-cases-on-upcoming-supreme-court-docket/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SIIA Welcomes Court Ruling Supporting Federal Preemption of RRG Regulation</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/preemption/6916/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/preemption/6916/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 12:55:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cmonfils</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Nevada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Preemption]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=6916</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[www.myhealthguide.com MyHealthGuide Source: The Self-Insurance Institute of America, Inc. (SIIA), 7/28/2011, www.SIIA.org The Self-Insurance Institute of America, Inc. (SIIA) welcomed the victory by a Vermont-licensed risk retention group (RRG) that appealed Nevadas attempt to bar its operation despite federal preemption under the Liability Risk Retention Act (LRRA). SIIA had submitted an amicus brief in support [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/preemption/6916/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>State-law Claims Proceed Despite Earlier ERISA Award, Due to Changed Participant Status</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/state-law-claims-proceed-despite-earlier-erisa-award-due-to-changed-participant-status/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/state-law-claims-proceed-despite-earlier-erisa-award-due-to-changed-participant-status/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 May 2011 14:16:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cmonfils</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[10th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Preemption]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=6377</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[www.myhealthguide.com MyHealthGuide Source: Todd Leeuwenburgh, Editor, Employer Health Benefits, Thompson Publishing Group, 5/4/2011, www.thompson.com Case: Hansen v. Harper Excavating, 2011 WL 1379821 (10th Cir., April 13, 2011) Fine distinctions about an employee&#8217;s status as a non-ERISA beneficiary allowed his state-law case &#8212; even though he had already prevailed on an ERISA complaint based on closely [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/state-law-claims-proceed-despite-earlier-erisa-award-due-to-changed-participant-status/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Privacy Lawsuit Against Plan Vendor Not ‘Completely’ Preempted by ERISA</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/hipaa/privacy-lawsuit-against-plan-vendor-not-%e2%80%98completely%e2%80%99-preempted-by-erisa/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/hipaa/privacy-lawsuit-against-plan-vendor-not-%e2%80%98completely%e2%80%99-preempted-by-erisa/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 23:49:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cmonfils</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[HIPAA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Preemption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Summary Plan Description]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=6342</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Coordination of Benefits              April 2011 &#124; Vol. 19, No. 2  ERISA does not necessarily preempt an employee’s lawsuit against his group health plan’s subrogation vendor for alleged improper disclosures of his medical records, a federal district court recently ruled. Although the lawsuit arguably “related to” an ERISA plan, it was not “completely” preempted so as [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/hipaa/privacy-lawsuit-against-plan-vendor-not-%e2%80%98completely%e2%80%99-preempted-by-erisa/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Attachment Of Proof Of Benefit Assignment May Prove Critical To Removal</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/attachment-of-proof-of-benefit-assignment-may-prove-critical-to-removal/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/attachment-of-proof-of-benefit-assignment-may-prove-critical-to-removal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Feb 2011 13:36:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>cmonfils</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Preemption]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=4820</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[www.healthplanlaw.com January 26, 2011 • The second prong of the Pascack test is also satisfied. Plaintiff identifies no other “independent legal duty” that would support its claims. Plaintiff’s argument that this is a “rate of payment” case is of no avail. 6 Plaintiff admits that it has no contractual relationship with any Defendants. At the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/attachment-of-proof-of-benefit-assignment-may-prove-critical-to-removal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Health Reform: New Subrogation And Reimbursement Rules</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/health-reform-new-subrogation-and-reimbursement-rules/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/health-reform-new-subrogation-and-reimbursement-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:25:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Attorneys' Fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Made Whole Rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Preemption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Subrogation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=3658</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Coordination of Benefits Handbook The government has yet to sort out the conflicting interests involved in subrogation/reimbursement dispute. Because there will be no reform body directly creating subrogation/reimbursement rules, the matter remains one of balancing various laws. For instance, laws in many states limit plans’ ability to recover health expenses based on the “make-whole,” “collateral [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/attorney-fees/health-reform-new-subrogation-and-reimbursement-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

