Skip to Main Content

Health Care Claims Disputes: Cases - Establishing Jurisdiction

A collection of statutes, treatises and cases dealing with disputes under various federal and state medical insurance plans.

Cases

Insurance Claims And Issues

Loading ...

ERISA Jurisdiction

Right of provider of health or medical services, as assignee of claim under ERISA (Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974), to maintain action against plan payor, by Michael A. deFreitas, J.D.
 
Health care providers, such as hospitals and physicians, often rely on assignments of benefits from their patients in order to receive payment directly under the health insurance policies or other health benefit plans covering the patients. Employer-provided health benefit plans are subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), which empowers certain classes of people to bring civil actions to recover benefits due under such plans. Because health care providers are not named as one of the classes, the question arises as to whether a heath care provider may bring an action against a health benefit plan payor to recover the benefits payable under the plan for the services rendered by the provider to the participants in or beneficiaries of the plan. For example, in Kennedy v Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. (1991, CA7 Ill) 924 F2d 698, 13 EBC 1572, 133 ALR Fed 591, the court held that a health care provider with an assignment of benefits from his patient could bring such an action against the health insurer in that case. This annotation collects and analyzes those reported federal and state cases in which the courts determined or recognized whether a health care provider, as assignee, may bring an action under ERISA against the person—usually a health insurance company—obligated to make payment under the ERISA-governed health benefit plan in which the provider's patient is a participant or beneficiary.
133 A.L.R. Fed. 109 (Originally published in 1996)

ERISA - Savings Clause Explained

ERISA Preemption Savings Clause
7 Although state laws that “relate to” ERISA plans trigger preemption, they may nonetheless be saved from preemption if they fall within the ERISA “savings clause” as a law that regulates insurance. To determine if a state law “regulates insurance,” the Supreme Court devised a two-prong analysis: 1) is the law “specifically directed at the insurance industry” and 2) does the law apply to the “business of insurance” within the McCarran–Ferguson Act? See Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Mass., 471 U.S. 724, 105 S.Ct. 2380, 85 L.Ed.2d 728 (1985). The first prong of the analysis is referred to as the “common sense” approach. The Supreme Court has stated that “[a] common-sense view of the word ‘regulates' would lead to the conclusion that in order to regulate insurance, a law must not just have an impact on the insurance industry, but must be specifically directed toward that industry.” Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 50, 107 S.Ct. 1549, 95 L.Ed.2d 39 (1987). Under the second prong of the analysis, a law will apply to the “business of insurance” if it 1) transfers or spreads the policyholder's risk; 2) if it is an integral part of the policy relationship between the insured and the insurer; and 3) if it is limited to entities within the insurance industry. See Metropolitan Life, 471 U.S. at 743, 105 S.Ct. 2380. The Sixth Circuit has held that it is not necessary to satisfy all three McCarran–Ferguson factors in order to satisfy the second-prong of the “regulates insurance” analysis. See Davies v. Centennial Life Ins. Co., 128 F.3d 934, 940 (6th Cir.1997).
Ward v. Alternative Health Delivery Sys., Inc., 55 F. Supp. 2d 694, 699 (W.D. Ky. 1999) aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 261 F.3d 624 (6th Cir. 2001)
Elements Required for Preemption
Complete preemption exists under Section 502(a) when the following four elements are satisfied: (1) plaintiff's complaint involves a relevant ERISA plan; (2) the plaintiff has standing to sue under the plan; (3) the defendant is an ERISA entity; and (4) the complaint seeks compensatory relief similar to what is available under Section 502(a). Sheridan Healthcorp,  Inc. v. Neighborhood Health P'ship, 459 F. Supp. 2d 1269, 1272 (S.D. Fla. 2006)

Search the Library to locate books, e-books, videos, articles, journals...
Search For

Other Search Options