bhoffman | September 1, 2010
SIIA, www.siia.org
By Thomas A. Croft, Esq.
I. The Supreme Court Clarifies ERISA Attorney Fee Provision
We have two reasons for reviewing Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 130 S. Ct. 2149 (2010). First, it is the latest ERISA decision from the Supreme Court cases define ERISA jurisprudence, they cannot be ignored. Second, the case addresses an [...]
bhoffman | August 27, 2010
Employer’s Guide to Self-Insuring Health Benefits, Thompson Publishing Group
Employers and other plan administrators are due greater deference in their benefits plan decisions than some lower courts have allowed, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled after admonishing two lower courts for failing to follow the High Court’s prior decisions establishing ERISA law on plan administration.
The High Court [...]
bhoffman | August 27, 2010
Employer’s Guide to Self-Insuring Health Benefits, Thompson Publishing Group
Employers and other plan administrators are due greater deference in their benefits plan decisions than some lower courts have allowed, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled. The Court’s 5-3 opinion in Conkright v. Frommert allows ERISA plan administrators to retain deferential review even after an erroneous interpretation of [...]
bhoffman | August 25, 2010
Coordination of Benefits Handbook
We are familiar with cases where ERISA and state laws conflict. As we know, self-insured health plans that are subject to ERISA may avoid the application of state laws because of ERISA preemption. As we have seen in our analysis of the case Bash v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. on [...]
Adam V. Russo | July 9, 2010
This unanimous decision resolved a split in the lower courts over a fact pattern regularly faced by administrators of ERISA plans when an employee and spouse are divorced, but the employee dies before changing the beneficiary designation for benefits. In Kennedy, the Supreme Court held that, notwithstanding the contrary terms of a divorce decree, the [...]
Adam V. Russo | June 17, 2010
Texas Health Insurance Risk Pool v. Sigmundik, 2010 WL 2136625 (Tex. 2010)
The self insured industry got a big subrogation win. In a very pro-subrogation opinion, the Texas Supreme Court declared that a trial court abuses its discretion when it invokes the equitable “Made Whole” Doctrine to circumvent a party’s contractual right to subrogation. The Court [...]
Adam V. Russo | June 17, 2010
From the Bench; By John H. Eggerstsen, Esq. and Michael Friedman, Esq.
This month’s From the Bench will review just one case-the U.S. Supreem Court’s most recent ERISA decision, Conkwright v. Frommert, No. 08-810 (April 21,2010). Amidst all the heady intensity surrounding the recently passed health care reform legislation, it is salutary perhaps to realize that [...]
Adam V. Russo | June 8, 2010
Jerry Geisel
WASHINGTON—The Obama administration is urging the U.S. Supreme Court not to review a 2008 appeals court ruling that upheld San Francisco’s controversial health care spending law.
The San Francisco law, which took effect in 2008, requires companies with at least 100 employees to spend at least $1.96 per hour per covered employee on health care, [...]
Adam V. Russo | June 8, 2010
www.laborlawyers.com
Even If Plaintiff Is Not Technically “Prevailing Party”
On May 24, 2010 the U. S. Supreme Court held that a party does not need to be a “prevailing party” in order to be eligible for an attorneys’ fees award under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). In reaching this decision, the Court relied [...]
Adam V. Russo | June 7, 2010
MyHealthGuide Source:
US Department of Labor, 6/2/2010,
Case: Golden Gate Restaurant Association v. City and County of San Francisco, California, et al.
In October 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court delayed action on employer fees in San Francisco’s groundbreaking health care program to seek advice from the Obama administration.
Adam V. Russo | May 24, 2010
On April 21, 2010, in the case of Conkright v. Frommert, 559 U.S. ___ (2010), the United States Supreme Court held that where a plan administrator is granted deference in exercising its discretionary authority, and the administrator subsequently issued an incorrect interpretation related to the plan document, absent malice, the plan administrator is not disqualified [...]
Adam V. Russo | May 7, 2010
On May 4, 2010, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision in Jaques v. Manton, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-1838, and held that a defendant in a personal injury lawsuit is not barred by Ohio’s collateral source statute from introducing evidence of medical bill “write-offs” – the difference between the amount reflected on the medical bill [...]
Adam V. Russo | May 4, 2010
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Conkright v. Frommert decision is an important confirmation of a plan administrator’s authority to interpret the terms of a benefit plan and serves as a reminder for plan sponsors to review the terms of their benefit plans to ensure that they contain sufficient discretionary language.
Adam V. Russo | April 26, 2010
(CN) – The Supreme Court on Tuesday reversed a 2nd Circuit ruling in the tangled world of ERISA law, saying the circuit incorrectly allowed a lower court to refuse to defer to a plan administrator’s interpretation of a plan for re-hired workers after an administrator’s previous, unrelated interpretation was found to be invalid.
Adam V. Russo | April 26, 2010
By Arthur D. Postal
WASHINGTON BUREAU — The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a ruling that appears to limit the ability of the federal courts to review benefit plan administrators’ decisions from scratch.
Members of the court today handed down a 5-3 decision holding that a federal district court has an obligation to defer to a “reasonable [...]
