Doe v. Group Hospitalization & Medical Services
case brief summary
3 F.3d 80 (1993)
CASE FACTS
Relying on contractual language excluding benefits for bone marrow transplants for treatment of multiple myeloma, as well as benefits for "related" services and supplies, appellee insurer denied benefits necessary to treat a rare form of blood cancer. Appellants, law firm and partner, challenged the denial of benefits under the Employee Retirement Insurance Security Act, 29 U.S.C.S. § 1132(a)(1)(B). On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court entered judgment for the insurer, holding that it properly denied coverage based on the contract and amendments.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
3 F.3d 80 (1993)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellants, a law firm and
a partner, challenged a decision on cross-motions for summary
judgment before the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia affirming appellee insurer's denial of benefits
under the Employee Retirement Insurance Security Act,29 U.S.C.S. §
1132(a)(1)(B).CASE FACTS
Relying on contractual language excluding benefits for bone marrow transplants for treatment of multiple myeloma, as well as benefits for "related" services and supplies, appellee insurer denied benefits necessary to treat a rare form of blood cancer. Appellants, law firm and partner, challenged the denial of benefits under the Employee Retirement Insurance Security Act, 29 U.S.C.S. § 1132(a)(1)(B). On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court entered judgment for the insurer, holding that it properly denied coverage based on the contract and amendments.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the court applied a less deferential standard of review by reason of appellees' financial interest in the outcome of its decision.
- Despite finding that the insurer properly amended its policy and properly took that amendment into account in deciding to deny benefits, the court held that the insurer abused its discretionary fiduciary powers in construing the amended language to exclude chemotherapy and radiation therapy by interpreting those treatments as "services or supplies for or related to" a bone marrow transplant.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment