<?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; Standings</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.passionforsubro.com/category/standing/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>Chronister v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/standing/chronister-v-unum-life-insurance-company-of-america/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/standing/chronister-v-unum-life-insurance-company-of-america/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jul 2010 18:46:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[8th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conflict of Interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MetLife v. Glenn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Standings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/?p=3499</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sandra Chronister was employed as a nurse at Baptist Health in Arkansas. In 1995, she was injured in a car accident, and thereafter sought disability benefits under Baptist Health’s long-term disability plan, which was insured and administered by Unum Life Insurance Co. of America. Unum initially granted her application for disability benefits. At Unum’s urging, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/standing/chronister-v-unum-life-insurance-company-of-america/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Wall Street Journal</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/claims-procedures/wall-street-journal/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/claims-procedures/wall-street-journal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:00:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Claims Procedures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claims Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Provider Reimbursement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Signed Subrogation Agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Standings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Subrogation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Summary Plan Description]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Third Party Administrators]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/wall-street-journal/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There is a recent newsworthy item that I wish to discuss, as it is pertinent to our industry.  The November 20, 2007 Wall Street Journal featured an extremely negative cover story, relating to the self-insured industry&#8217;s subrogation activities under ERISA.  These types of prominent news stories do nothing for the self-insured industry except motivate the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/claims-procedures/wall-street-journal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mississippi Court Says That Minor’s Compromise Trumps ERISA Subrogation</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/mississippi-court-says-that-minor%e2%80%99s-compromise-trumps-erisa-subrogation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/mississippi-court-says-that-minor%e2%80%99s-compromise-trumps-erisa-subrogation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:02:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minor's Compromise]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mississippi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Preemption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Provider Reimbursement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Standings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/mississippi-court-says-that-minor%e2%80%99s-compromise-trumps-erisa-subrogation/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/mississippi-court-says-that-minor%e2%80%99s-compromise-trumps-erisa-subrogation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Another Court Interprets Sereboff as Pro-Plan</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/claims-procedures/another-court-interprets-sereboff-as-pro-plan/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/claims-procedures/another-court-interprets-sereboff-as-pro-plan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 21:35:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[7th]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claims Procedures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Standings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/another-court-interprets-sereboff-as-pro-plan/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 &#8220;in Sereboff, the Supreme Court held that Great-West did not apply to a situation where the third-party proceeds were segregated and hence &#8220;specifically identifiable.&#8221; Sereboff, 126 S.Ct. at 1874. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/claims-procedures/another-court-interprets-sereboff-as-pro-plan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>McGee v. Yum!Brands, Inc., 2006 WL 2631976 (W.D. KY, 2006)</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/mcgee-v-yumbrands-inc-2006-wl-2631976-wd-ky-2006/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/mcgee-v-yumbrands-inc-2006-wl-2631976-wd-ky-2006/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:47:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plan Language]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Standings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Third Party Administrators]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/mcgee-v-yumbrands-inc-2006-wl-2631976-wd-ky-2006/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 &#8220;disabled&#8221; [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/mcgee-v-yumbrands-inc-2006-wl-2631976-wd-ky-2006/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>South Central Indiana School Trust v. Poyner</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/south-central-indiana-school-trust-vs-poyner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/south-central-indiana-school-trust-vs-poyner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:42:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Provider Reimbursement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Standings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/south-central-indiana-school-trust-vs-poyner/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In March of 2005, Poyner was injured when an automobile struck her while she was riding her bicycle and received nearly $ 200,000.00 in medical benefits. Subsequently she recovered $ 10,000.00 from the insurer of the automobile which struck her and $100,000.00 from her own under insured motorist coverage. The Plan attempted to persuade Poyner [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/south-central-indiana-school-trust-vs-poyner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hughes v. Legion Insurance Company 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 17255, (US Dist. S.D. TX, 2007)</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/claims-procedures/hughes-v-legion-insurance-company-2007-us-dist-lexis-17255-us-dist-sd-tx-2007/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/claims-procedures/hughes-v-legion-insurance-company-2007-us-dist-lexis-17255-us-dist-sd-tx-2007/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:41:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Claims Procedures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fiduciary Liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plan Language]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Standings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Third Party Administrators]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/hughes-v-legion-insurance-company-2007-us-dist-lexis-17255-us-dist-sd-tx-2007/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This case arose from a Plan&#8217;s failure to add an employee&#8217;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 &#8220;participant&#8221; and the &#8220;Plan Administrator.&#8221; Employees were instructed to direct their inquiries about the Plan to their [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/claims-procedures/hughes-v-legion-insurance-company-2007-us-dist-lexis-17255-us-dist-sd-tx-2007/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reichert v. Liberty</title>
		<link>http://www.passionforsubro.com/claims-procedures/reichert-v-liberty/</link>
		<comments>http://www.passionforsubro.com/claims-procedures/reichert-v-liberty/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:38:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam V. Russo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Claims Procedures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fiduciary Liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Provider Reimbursement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Standings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.passionforsubro.com/erisa/reichert-v-liberty/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Section 502(a)(3)(B) of ERISA permits a fiduciary to bring a civil action &#8220;to obtain equitable relief to enforce the terms of the plan&#8221;. To obtain this &#8220;equitable relief,&#8221; the basis for the fiduciary&#8217;s claim and the relief it seeks must be equitable in nature. Importantly, a fiduciary cannot seek to impose personal liability, as that [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.passionforsubro.com/claims-procedures/reichert-v-liberty/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

