: : Seventh Circuit Uses “Dual Hat” Versus “Single Hat” Analysis To Decide State Law Preemption Issues

“The exclusive benefit rule is a cornerstone of ERISA that state law cannot dilute. While ERISA narrowly contemplates parallel liability against the dual-hat director and officer defendants, it preempts further aiding and abetting liability that would impose additional duties on Argent and Stout beyond their exclusive ERISA obligations.” Halperin v. Richards No. 20-2793 (July 28, …

: : Seventh Circuit Uses “Dual Hat” Versus “Single Hat” Analysis To Decide State Law Preemption Issues Read More »

: : District Court Grants Over $200,000 In Attorneys’ Fees And Costs Against UNUM In Disability Case

In any action brought by a plan participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary under ERISA, “the court in its discretion may allow a reasonable attorney’s fee and costs of action to either party.”  29 U.S.C. § 1132(g) (1). In interpreting this statute, the Ninth Circuit has held that a prevailing plan participant, such as Dr. Connor, should …

: : District Court Grants Over $200,000 In Attorneys’ Fees And Costs Against UNUM In Disability Case Read More »

: : State Law Banning Discretionary Language Saved from ERISA Preemption

Research revealed no relevant case law addressing Oregon’s specific regulation. However, several circuits, including the Ninth, Seventh, and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeals, have held that similar state bans on discretionary language in ERISA plans are not preempted. See Standard Ins. Co. v. Morrison, 584 F.3d 837, 846-47 (9th Cir. 2009)…Adams v. United of Omaha …

: : State Law Banning Discretionary Language Saved from ERISA Preemption Read More »

: : Primer Provider Reimbursement Pleading To Avoid Motion To Dismiss

“Before the Court is Defendants Cigna Healthcare Inc., Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co., Connecticut General Life Insurance Co., and Cigna Healthcare of Arizona’s (collectively, “Cigna”) Motion to Dismiss. In October 2018, PSCC received a letter from Cigna that it had “conducted an internal audit and determined that PSCC had damaged Cigna in an amount …

: : Primer Provider Reimbursement Pleading To Avoid Motion To Dismiss Read More »

: : Plaintiff May Proceed On ERISA Claims Challenging Repricing of Provider Claims

Through this matter, Plaintiffs are attempting to stop Defendants allegedly improper practice of underbilling for chiropractic services that Plaintiffs provided to their patients. Presently before the Court are motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint filed by the . . . Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that the Cigna and Aetna Defendants hired the Vendor Defendants to …

: : Plaintiff May Proceed On ERISA Claims Challenging Repricing of Provider Claims Read More »

: : Disability Policy Offered By Employer Determined To Be Governed By State Law

ERISA preempts state law that “relate[s] to any employee benefit plan.”[2] 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). Plaintiff asserts his claims under a disability policy that, according to Plaintiff, is not subject to ERISA regulation. . . . The undisputed facts establish that DLL&R requested the removal of Plaintiff’s policy from the FlexBill, Defendant sent Plaintiff a …

: : Disability Policy Offered By Employer Determined To Be Governed By State Law Read More »

: : Duke Energy Benefits Committee Sues Law Firm & Plan Member in ERISA Reimbursement Case

Defendants have refused, despite numerous requests, to reimburse the Plan forbenefits the Plan paid on Heafner’s behalf out of Settlement Funds he received in connection withthe Accident. Defendants’ actions violate the terms of the Plan. Heafner has been unjustly enriched by her refusal to reimburse the Plan for themedical benefits it paid on his behalf. …

: : Duke Energy Benefits Committee Sues Law Firm & Plan Member in ERISA Reimbursement Case Read More »