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.

The Mississippi Supreme Court found that ERISA did not preempt state law in this case, based upon a theory that there was no direct clash between the state law and the provisions of ERISA, and no clear intention of Congress to preempt. Family law, the court held, is an area traditionally regulated by the states, and there is a presumption against preemption. Moreover, there is no damage to any clear and substantial federal interest. In other words, the court held that because the funds were not the property of the minor, and rather, the court was in possession of the funds, and given that matters of family law and the welfare of minors are within the historic jurisdiction of state courts, the court refused to allow ERISA to preempt their minor’s compromise action.

Tags:

This entry was posted by Adam V. Russo on Tuesday, November 13th, 2007 at 4:02 pm and is filed under ERISA, Minor's Compromise, Mississippi, Preemption, Provider Reimbursement, Standings. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.