We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results:1-10 of 22

Rulings, filings, and settlements of interest
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • November 9 2012

In Access Mediquip, L.L.C. v. UnitedHealthcare Insurance Co., F.3d , No. 10-20868, 2012 WL 4747260 (5th Cir. Oct. 5, 2012), the Fifth Circuit, en banc, held that ERISA does not preempt a third-party medical provider's state law claims based on a health plan insurer's misrepresentations of coverage.


Rulings, filings, and settlements of interest
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • October 12 2012

In Reese v. CNH Am. LLC, Nos. 11-1359, 11-1857, 11-1969, --- F.3d ---, 2012 WL 40009695 (6th Cir. Sept. 13, 2012), the Sixth Circuit for the second time reversed the decision of the district court and held that an employer could reasonably yet unilaterally alter lifetime healthcare benefits for retirees without engaging in collective bargaining.


Class warfareERISA class litigation in light of Wal-Mart v. Dukes
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • May 16 2012

As millions of American workers approach retirement age and health care costs rise, the prospects for class action litigation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act claims remain robust.


“Never mind” DOL withdraws proposed regulation on the definition of an ERISA “fiduciary”
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • November 7 2011

In October 2010, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued a proposed regulation setting forth a new, broader interpretation of the statutory definition of a “fiduciary” under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001, et seq.


Rulings, filings, and settlements of interest
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • October 5 2011

In Franco v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., No. 07-cv-6039, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109022 (D.N.J. Sept. 23, 2011), plaintiffs, who were plan subscribers, health care providers, and several associations whose members consisted of out-of-network ("ONET") providers who provided ONET services to patients insured by CIGNA, alleged that CIGNA violated its contractual obligations to pay for ONET services at the "usual, customary and reasonable" ("UCR") rate by relying on the flawed database maintained by Ingenix, which generated artificially low UCRs to underpay ONET benefits to CIGNA plan members.


Rulings, filings, and settlements of interest
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • September 9 2011

In Florida v. United States Dep't of Health and Human Servs., 11-11021-cv, 2011 WL 3519178 (11th Cir. Aug. 12, 2011), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's ruling that the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional.


Pending Sixth Circuit case has implications for directed trustees, participant-directed plans
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • February 4 2011

Watch for the discussion in our next Newsletter of the Seventh Circuit’s recent decisions in Spano v. Boeing Co. and Beesley v. International Paper (consolidated cases), Nos. 09-3001 & 09-3018 (7th Cir. Jan. 21, 2011).


Proskauer is perspective
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • January 13 2011

Our look back at the past year, and forward into the coming year, confirms the enduring nature of ERISA litigation practice.


Rulings, filings and settlements of interest
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • December 10 2010

In North Cypress Med. Ctr. Operating Co. v. MedSolutions Inc., No. 4:10-cv-2608 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 11, 2010), a district court held that a hospital lacked standing to sue a third-party claims administrator because the hospital’s patients had not made an express and knowing assignment of their rights to assert ERISA fiduciary duty claims against the hospital.


Rulings, filings and settlements of interest
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • November 3 2010

In Matschiner v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 2010 WL 3910217 (8th Cir. Oct. 7, 2010), the Eighth Circuit applied the “plan documents rule” established by the Supreme Court in Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings & Investment Plan, 129 S.Ct. 865 (2009), and concluded that Hartford properly paid benefits pursuant to a beneficiary designation form rather than a Nebraska state divorce decree that purported to divest the decedent’s ex-husband of his right to the benefits.