Search results
Order by most recent / most popular / relevance
Results: 1-10 of 11
Rulings, filings and settlements of interest
- Proskauer Rose LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- June 7 2010
In Golden Gate Restaurant Assoc. v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 08-1515 (U.S.), the U.S. Solicitor General requested that the Supreme Court deny certiorari in light of the recent enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA
Second Circuit holds Taft-Hartley funds are inherently conflicted, potentially affects outcome and scope of future benefit claims litigation
- Proskauer Rose LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- June 29 2010
On June 24, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held, in Durakovic v. Building Service 32 BJ Pension Fund, 2010 WL 2519645 (2d Cir. 2010), that Taft-Hartley funds (administered by boards of trustees consisting of an equal number of union and employer representatives) are inherently conflicted when making benefit determinations, and that this conflict needs to be considered by federal district courts when reviewing plan determinations under an arbitrary and capricious standard of review
U.S. Supreme Court to consider “prevailing party” status as a requirement to entitlement to attorney’s fee award under ERISA
- Proskauer Rose LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- February 3 2010
On January 15, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., No. 09-448, and agreed to consider the question of whether a party in an ERISA action must be a “prevailing party” to be entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs under Section 502(g)(1), 29 U.S.C. 1132(g)(1
Rulings, filings and settlements of interest
- Proskauer Rose LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- February 3 2010
In Pollitt v. Health Care Serv. Corp., 558 F.3d 615 (7th Cir. Mar. 10, 2009), cert. granted (Oct. 13, 2009), the Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s finding that the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act (“FEHBA”) preempted a participant’s claim that Health Cares Services Corporation (“HCSC”) acted in bad faith by terminating her son’s coverage and seeking reimbursement of benefits previously provided
Exhaustion of benefit claims
- Proskauer Rose LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- November 7 2011
In Laird v. Norton Healthcare, Inc., No. 10-5205, 2011 WL 4597539 (6th Cir. Oct. 6, 2011), the Sixth Circuit held that claims for short-term disability ("STD") benefits and long-term disability ("LTD") benefits were properly denied for failure to timely exhaust the respective plans' administrative remedies
Third Circuit limits relief available to ERISA welfare plans seeking reimbursement of medical expenses
- Proskauer Rose LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- November 17 2011
In a case of significant importance for plan sponsors and fiduciaries, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in US Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen, No. 10-3836 (3d Cir. Nov. 16, 2011), that an employee benefit plan was not entitled to full reimbursement of medical expenses it paid to a participant even though the plan provided that the participant was required to reimburse the plan for all amounts paid "out of any monies recovered from a third party."
Disability benefit offsets
- Proskauer Rose LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- November 7 2011
In Riley v. Sun Life & Health Insurance Co., --- F.3d ----, No. 10-2850, 2011 WL 4634218 (8th Cir. Oct. 7, 2011), the Eighth Circuit held that a long-term disability plan administrator could not offset from plaintiff’s monthly disability benefits the amount of Department of Veterans Affairs benefits the plaintiff also received for the same condition
The constitutionality of the individual mandate under the Affordable Care Act an issue now ripe for Supreme Court review
- Proskauer Rose LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- November 7 2011
Section 1501 of the Affordable Care Act requires all individuals (with limited exception) to buy health insurance or pay a penalty to the federal government, starting in 2014
Retiree Benefits
- Proskauer Rose LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- November 7 2011
In Evans v. Sterling Chemicals, Inc., --- F.3d ----, No. 10-20493, 2011 WL 4837847 (5th Cir. Oct. 13, 2011), the Fifth Circuit held that an employer violated ERISA by increasing the cost of certain retirees' health care benefits
Supreme Court upholds the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate: what it means for employers and plan sponsors
- Proskauer Rose LLP
- -
- USA
- -
- June 28 2012
The Supreme Court of the United States (the "Court") ruled today, in a 5-to-4 landmark decision, that the individual mandate under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("the Act") is constitutional, although it also held that certain Medicaid expansion provisions are unconstitutional
Current Search
- Workarea - Litigation
- Workarea - Insurance & Reinsurance
- Workarea - Healthcare
- Workarea - Employee Benefits & Pensions
- Firm Name - Proskauer Rose LLP