Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, two individual psychiatrists and three professional associations of psychiatrists, filed suit against defendants, four health‐insurance companies, alleging that the health insurers’ reimbursement practices discriminate against patients with mental health and substance use disorders in violation of the Mental Health Parity and Addition Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA), 29 U.S.C. 1185(a), and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001-1461. The court concluded that, because the psychiatrists are not among those expressly authorized to sue, they lack a cause of action under ERISA. The court also concluded that the association plaintiffs lack constitutional standing to pursue their respective ERISA and MHPAEA claims because their members lack standing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Am. Psychiatric Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc." on Justia Law

Vermont law requires certain entities, including health insurers, to report payments and other information relating to health care claims and services for compilation in a state health care database. Liberty Mutual’s health plan, which provides benefits in all 50 states, is an “employee welfare benefit plan” under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA); its third-party administrator, Blue Cross, is subject to the statute. Concerned that the disclosure of confidential information might violate its fiduciary duties, the Plan instructed Blue Cross not to comply and sought a declaration that ERISA preempts application of Vermont’s statute. The Second Circuit reversed summary judgment in favor of the state. The Supreme Court affirmed. ERISA expressly preempts “any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan,” 29 U.S.C. 1144(a) and, therefore, preempts a state law that has an impermissible “connection with” ERISA plans. ERISA mandates certain oversight systems and other standard procedures; Vermont’s law also governs plan reporting, disclosure, and recordkeeping. Preemption is necessary to prevent multiple jurisdictions from imposing differing, or even parallel, regulations, creating wasteful administrative costs and threatening to subject plans to wide-ranging liability. ERISA’s uniform rule design makes clear that the Secretary of Labor, not the states, decides whether to exempt plans from ERISA reporting requirements or to require ERISA plans to report data such as sought by Vermont. View "Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Employee benefits plans regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) often contain subrogation clauses requiring participants to reimburse the plan for medical expenses if they later recover money from a third party. Montanile was seriously injured by a drunk driver. His ERISA plan paid more than $120,000 for his medical expenses. Montanile sued the drunk driver, obtaining a $500,000 settlement. The plan administrator sought reimbursement from the settlement. Montanile’s attorney refused and indicated that the funds would be transferred from a trust account to Montanile unless the administrator objected. The administrator did not respond. Montanile received the settlement. Six months later, the administrator sued under ERISA 502(a)(3), which authorizes plan fiduciaries to file suit “to obtain . . . appropriate equitable relief . . . to enforce . . . the plan.” 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3). The district court rejected Montanile’s arguments, The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that even if Montanile had completely dissipated the fund, the plan was entitled to reimbursement from Montanile’s general assets. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for determination of whether Montanile had dissipated the settlement. When an ERISA-plan participant wholly dissipates a third-party settlement on nontraceable items, the plan fiduciary may not bring suit under section 502(a)(3) to attach the participant’s separate assets. Historical equity practice does not support enforcement of an equitable lien against general assets. View "Montanile v. Bd. of Trs. of Nat'l Elevator Indus. Health Benefit Plan" on Justia Law

Waskiewicsz suffers from type-1 diabetes, major depression, and gender identity disorder She worked as a product design engineer for Ford from 1990 until October, 2010, when she suffered “a debilitating emotional breakdown.” In December, after her father found her barricaded in her house, she sought long-term disability benefits under Ford’s Plan, governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001. Under the plan: An Active Employee whose employment is terminated . . . shall cease to be eligible for Benefits as of the earlier of: (a) the date the Employee has been notified; or (b) the day prior to the date of such termination (in the case of retroactive terminations) . .... An employee is required to notify the Claim Processor ... if the employee is absent for more than five (5) consecutive Workdays.” She did not give notice within the five-day period and was, apparently, terminated in the interim. UniCare concluded that she did not qualify for benefits. The Sixth Circuit reversed. On remand, Waskiewicz must be given the opportunity to show that her alleged failure to comply with the requirements of the Plan was due to the very disability for which she seeks benefits. View "Waskiewicz v. UniCare Life & Health Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The insurer operates a preferred-provider system that offers patients better benefits, or lower co-payments, for patronizing medical providers who have agreed with the insurer to accept lower reimbursements (per procedure) in exchange for a better flow of business. The chiropractor plaintiffs signed such “participating provider” or “network” agreements. Providers bill the insurer directly regardless of whether a patient obtained coverage as part of an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) welfare-benefit plan or through some other means, such as an affinity-group policy or an insurance exchange under the Affordable Care Act. Chiropractors sued, contending that, when determining how much to pay for services rendered to patients, the insurer failed to use the procedures required by ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1133. The district court concluded that plaintiffs are beneficiaries under ERISA and awarded damages and injunctions requiring the insurer to follow section 1133 and Department of Labor regulations. The Seventh Circuit reversed, noting that plaintiffs concede that they are not participants under the ERISA definition and that a network contract between a medical provider and an insurer does not make that provider a “beneficiary” under ERISA. View "Pa. Chiropractic Ass'n v. Independence Hosp. Indem., Inc." on Justia Law

NJBSC is a Bergen County neurosurgical medical practice. NJBSC treated three patients who were members of health-care plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001, and administered by Aetna. Before surgery, each patient executed an assignment to NJBSC. Following treatment, Aetna allegedly underpaid or refused to pay claims for each of the patients. NJBSC filed suit The district court dismissed NJBSC’s complaint, holding that the assigned rights to payment did not give NJBSC standing to sue under ERISA. The Third Circuit reversed, holding that a patient’s explicit assignment of payment of insurance benefits to her healthcare provider, without direct reference to the right to file suit, is sufficient to give the provider standing to sue for those benefits under ERISA. View "N. Jersey Brain & Spine Ctr., v. Aetna Inc" on Justia Law

In 1989, the Supreme Court held that courts should apply de novo review in suits challenging denials of employee benefits governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1), but if the benefit plan provided expressly for a different, more deferential standard of review, that specific provision would control over the default rule of de novo review. Insurance companies and plan sponsors began including such provisions in most benefit plans, typically saying the insurer or plan administrator would exercise discretionary judgment in interpreting a plan or deciding whether to pay benefits. Courts would then apply a deferential standard of review under which a denial would stand unless it was “arbitrary and capricious.” Later, state laws were adopted to protect employees and plan beneficiaries from abuse of such discretion. An Illinois insurance law, prohibited provisions “purporting to reserve discretion” to insurers to interpret health and disability insurance policies. The Seventh Circuit rejected a preemption challenge and applied the state law in a case involving a challenge to an insurance provider’s definition of “disability,” The court did not address whether the denial of benefits was arbitrary and capricious. View "Fontaine v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co" on Justia Law

In 2009, Liu, a physician in a residency program, elected basic life insurance coverage from LINA through his employer’s ERISA plan and elected supplemental coverage in an amount four times his salary. Asked whether, within the last five years he had been diagnosed with “Cancer, Tumor, Leukemia, Hodgkin’s Disease, Polyps or Mole,” he answered “no.” One month after submitting his application, Liu received a cancer diagnosis. On March 1, 2010, the insurance became effective. On April 23, 2010, Liu died. LINA paid the basic benefit of $46,858.49, but reviewed Liu’s medical records, which revealed that Liu had been experiencing symptoms without a diagnosis before submitting his November 12 application. LINA then issued a denial, stating: While the form was completed accurately at the time ... a diagnosis of cancer prior to the coverage approval date was not disclosed … [the] Form states ... any changes in your health prior to the insurance effective date must be reported. His wife responded that Liu was told he would not have to provide evidence of good health, but did not identify the person who made the alleged representation. The court rejected the wife’s suit on summary judgment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Liu breached an application requirement by failing to notify LINA of a cancer diagnosis he received before a policy issued. View "Huang v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am." on Justia Law

A Challenge employee consulted Dr. Mirza about back pain, agreed to undergo an endoscopic discectomy, and executed an assignment of her benefits under Challenge’s plan. Mizra completed the procedure and submitted a claim for $34,500, which was denied. Mirza submitted additional documents. The claim was denied again. Mirza went through internal review and, on August 12, 2010, received a letter denying his final appeal, indicating that the procedure was not covered because it was medically investigational, and notifying Mirza of his right to bring a civil action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1001. Neither the letter nor the earlier denials mentioned that, under the plan, Mirza had one year from the final denial to seek judicial review. While the parties debate the substance of an earlier phone call, the first time Mirza received written notice of the one-year deadline was April 11, 2011. On March 8, 2012, Mirza sued. The district court granted defendants summary judgment. The Third Circuit vacated. Plan administrators must inform claimants of plan-imposed deadlines for judicial review in their notifications denying benefits. The appropriate remedy is to set aside the plan’s time limit and apply the limitations period from New Jersey’s six-year deadline for breach of contract claims. View "Mirza v. Ins. Admin. of Am., Inc" on Justia Law

The NEI Board administers a self-funded, multi-employer health plan covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001. A Trust Agreement, executed by the participating companies and the Board, does not specify Plan details, but provides that “[t]he detailed basis on which payment of benefits is to be made … shall be set forth in the Plan of Welfare Benefits … subject to amendment by the Trustees.” The National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan Summary Plan Description, (SPD) provides the details and includes a subrogation provision: The Plan has the right to recover benefits advanced to a covered person for expenses or losses caused by another party. The Plan is only obligated to provide covered benefits resulting from that illness or injury that exceed amounts recovered from another party (regardless of whether designated to cover medical expenses). The Plan sought reimbursement for medical expenses paid on Moore’s behalf, following Moore’s settlement of a negligence action against entities responsible for injuries he suffered in an accident. Moore counterclaimed, alleging that the Board had violated its fiduciary duty by misrepresenting the Plan terms. The Sixth Circuit found that the SPD containing the subrogation provision set out the binding terms of the Plan and that the plain language of the provision required reimbursement. View "Bd. of Trustees v. Moore" on Justia Law