PREEMPTION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
|
|
- Denis Singleton
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 PREEMPTION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ERISA PREEMPTION QUESTIONS 1. What is an ERISA plan? An ERISA plan is any benefit plan that is established and maintained by an employer, an employee organization (union), or both, for the purposes of providing its participants and beneficiaries, through the purchase of insurance or otherwise: (1) medical, surgical, or hospital care benefits; (2) benefits in the event of sickness, accident, disability, death, or unemployment; (3) vacation benefits; (4) apprenticeship or other training programs; (5) day care centers; (6) scholarship funds; or (7) pre-paid legal services. See 29 U.S.C. 1002(1) 2. What types of plans are not governed by ERISA? (1) Individual Plans (2) Medicare Advantage Plans (3) Medicaid HMO s (4) Governmental Plans (5) Church Plans Individual plans (insurance purchased privately by individuals or families) and plans established to replace Medicare or Medicaid are not sponsored by an employer and therefore do not meet ERISA s definition of employee benefit plans and are therefore excluded from ERISA. ERISA specifically excludes from coverage all employee benefit plans established and maintained for its employees by: (1) the United States Government, or by the government of any State or political subdivision thereof, or by an agency or instrumentality of the foregoing; (2) a church or convention of churches. See 29 U.S.C. 1003(b); 29 U.S.C. 1002(32); 29 U.S.C. 1002(33) 3. What type of actions can be brought by employee benefits plans under ERISA? Where can such claims be filed? Congress intended the civil enforcement scheme established by ERISA to be the exclusive remedy for violations of an employee benefit plan. ERISA s civil enforcement scheme provides causes of actions to: (1) participants (employees) and beneficiaries (dependents); (2) fiduciaries (such as employers and plan administrators); and (3) the Secretary of Labor.
2 Of all of the actions allowed, only two causes of actions potentially affect the plan s rights of subrogation and reimbursement. Actions under 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)(B) and 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3) 502(a)(1) Actions ERISA plan participants (employees) and beneficiaries (dependents) may brings claims to: (A) seek penalties if the plan fails to provide information requested by participant or beneficiary (up to $110 per day in the court s discretion); (B) to recover benefits dues under the plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify rights under the terms of the plan. State and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over 502(a)(1) claims. 502(a)(3) Actions ERISA plan participants, beneficiaries and fiduciaries (such as employers and administrators) may bring actions to: (A) enjoin any act or practice which violates the provisions of ERISA or the terms of the plan; (B) obtain other appropriate equitable relief to redress such violations or to enforce the terms of ERISA or the plan Federal district courts have excusive jurisdiction over 502(a)(3) claims. See. 29 U.S.C. 1132(e)(1). 4. How do you determine a plan s funding status? What does it mean to be a self-funded or insured plan? Employers can funds an employee benefit plan in many different ways. For instance, the employer can purchase insurance policies to provide benefits to its employees. This type of plan is an insured-erisa plan. Instead of using the contributions to purchase insurance, many large employers will take the contributions and place them in a trust. The employer will then use this trust to provide benefits to participants and beneficiaries. This type of plan is known as a self-funded ERISA plan. Self-funded plans often engage a third party administrator (or TPA ) to administrate its claims. TPA will contract with providers (much like insurance networks), but all of the payments come directly from the trust. Self-funded plans can often provide the same benefits with lower contributions because the employers does not make a profit for running the plan. In other words, there is no premium for assuming the risk.
3 5. How does ERISA preemption affect an ERISA plan s rights of subrogation and reimbursement? One of the primary goals of ERISA is to provide a uniform regulatory system for the administration of employee benefit plans. Accordingly, Congress provided that employee benefit plans would be governed by federal, as opposed to state, laws. The Courts have interpreted ERISA to have two forms of preemption: (1) Statutory or Express Preemption (under ERISA 514); and (2) Complete Preemption (under ERISA 502). 514 Preemption Statutory or Express Preemption ERISA s statutory preemption provision can be broken down into three clauses: (1) the preemption clause; (2) the savings clause ; and (3) the deemer clause. (1) Preemption Clause: ERISA shall supersede any and all state laws that related to employee benefit plans. The relate to requirement of the preemption clause has been interpreted very broadly. Thus, a state law is found to relate to and employee benefit plan if it has any connect or affect on the employee benefit plan. (2) Savings Clause: ERISA does not supersede (preempt) state laws that regulate: (1) insurance; (2) banking; or (3) securities. The United States Supreme Court has adopted a two part test to determine whether a state law regulates insurance : To regulate insurance, a state law must: (1) be a law that is aimed at the insurance industry; AND (2) affect risk pooling. See Kentucky Association of Health Plans v. Miller, 533 U.S. 926 (2001). (3) Deemer Clause: State laws cannot deem self-funded plans to be insurers for the purpose of state regulation. Statutory/Express Preemption goes by many names. It is also referred to as conflict preemption and ordinary preemption. 502 Preemption Complete Preemption The United States Supreme Court has determined that Congress intended ERISA s civil enforcement scheme provided in ERISA 502 to be the exclusive remedies for enforcement of rights and obligations under an employee benefit plan. Thus, the courts have held that any state law that provides an alternative remedy or means to enforce an employee benefit plan is completely preempted
4 by ERISA regardless of whether it meats the requirements of the 514 preemption. For example, in Aetna v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 (2004) the United States Supreme Court found that ERISA preempted a Texas statute that established a cause of action against insurers for violating a standard of care when denying benefits for not being medically necessary. Note: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Providence v. McDowell, 385 F.3d 1168 (9 th Cir. 2004) has held that state breach of contract actions are not preempted by ERISA because they do not relate to employee benefits plans. Thus, under this interpretation, ERISA plans may file actions in state court to enforce reimbursement provisions within the plan. This case, which has been highly criticized, does not address a complete preemption analysis. Unfortunately, breach of contract actions rarely meet federal jurisdiction requirements and must be brought in state courts Some states within the Ninth Circuit have age of this argument within the Ninth Circuit, we have been hesitant to attempt to extend this precedent to other circuits are litigate the matter. 6. What type of state laws should be examined for ERISA preemption? State laws: (1) barring enforcement of subrogation/reimbursement provisions; or which apply (2) the make-whole doctrine; (3) the common fund doctrine; or (4) collateral source reductions should all be reviewed for ERISA preemption. 7. How do the US Supreme Court Decisions in Knudson and Sereboff affect an ERISA plan s rights of subrogation and reimbursement? Under ERISA, plan fiduciaries may only bring actions seeking injunctions and other appropriate equitable relief. The United States Supreme Court has interpreted appropriate equitable relief in two cases. Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204 (2002) This case involved a plan beneficiary that was severely injured in a motor vehicle accident. As a result of injuries she received in the action, the beneficiary received benefits under her ERISA plan in the amount of $411, The beneficiary brought an action against the manufacturer of her vehicle and settled that case for $650,000. Because the beneficiary received head injury in the action, the beneficiary was not capable of handling her own affairs. As such, the proceeds of the settlement were placed in a special needs trust under California law.
5 The ERISA plan sought to be re-paid for the $411,157 in benefits extended on behalf of the beneficiary. When no settlement could be reached, the plan brought an action against the beneficiary in federal district court seeking appropriate equitable relief under ERISA 502(a)(3). The equitable remedies sought included: (1) injunction; (2) specific performance of the plan; and (3) restitution. The district court dismissed the plan s claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction finding that the plan did not seek appropriate equitable relief against the beneficiary. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Ultimately, the United States Supreme Court granted the plan s petition for certiorari. In examining whether the plan s claim constituted equitable relief, the Court determined that ERISA allows only those categories of relief that were typically allowed in equity in the days of the divided bench. As such, the Court held that injunctions and specific performance were not available because these remedies were general not allowed to command the payment of money. Next, the Court examined the plan s claim for restitution. For the first time, the Court advised that restitution was available both in courts of equity and courts of law. It held that: restitution in equity, ordinarily in the form of a constructive trust or an equitable lien, where money or property identified as belonging in good conscience to the plaintiff could clearly be traced to particular funds in the defendant s possession. A court of equity could then order a defendant to transfer title (in the case of a constructive trust) or grant a security interest (in the case of an equitable lien) to a plaintiff who was, in the eyes of equity, the true owner. Knudson at 213. Because the plan beneficiary was not in possession of the settlement funds, the Knudson Court held that the plan did not seek appropriate equitable relief under ERISA. It affirmed the dismissal based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because the issues were not before the Court, the Knudson opinion specifically refrained from addressing whether ERISA would preempt (and thus prohibit) a plan s right of subrogation, or a plan s right to pursue a breach of contract in statute court. Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., 126 S.Ct (2006)
6 After the Knudson decision, there was a flood of litigation regarding whether the remedies of constructive trust and equitable liens appropriate equitable relief under ERISA when seeking enforcement of an ERISA plan s reimbursement provision. Ultimately a split occurred among the Courts of Appeals. The Sixth and Ninth Circuits held that equitable relief was never available when seeking money under the terms of an ERISA plan. See Qualchoice, Inc. v. Rowland, 367 F.3d 638 (6 th Cir. 2003); Weststaff v. Arce, 298 F.3d 1164 (9 th Cir. 2002). Meanwhile, the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth and Tenth Circuits all recognized that equitable relief was available when the defendant had possession of the disputed funds. Ultimately, the United States Supreme Court took its third ERISA subrogation case to resolve the conflict. The facts of Sereboff are somewhat similar to those in Knudson. An ERISA plan participant and beneficiary were injured in an automobile accident. The participant and beneficiary brought a lawsuit against the responsible parties, and settled that lawsuit for $750,000. After the settlement, they refused to reimburse the ERISA plan for the $75,000 in benefits made on there behalf. The ERISA plan then filed suit in federal district court asking that the court impose a constructive trust over the settlement funds (which were being held in a money market account). The district court granted the plan s motion for summary judgment and ordered that $75,000 be paid to the ERISA plan. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. The United States Supreme Court granted the participant s petition for certiorari. In a unanimous decision, authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that plan s reimbursement provision constituted an equitable lien by assignment which had previously been considered equitable relief by the Court. As such, the Court affirmed the granting of summary judgment in favor of the plan. One of the arguments made by the plan participant in Sereboff, was that the equitable relief sought by the plan was subject to equitable defenses (such as the make-whole rule). The Court held that whether the plaintiff has been made whole would not affect the equitable nature of the plaintiff s claim, and therefore equitable defenses were beside the point. In their merit brief before the Supreme Court, the participant also argued that the relief was not appropriate because the participant had not been made whole. Since the participant did not make this argument in the lower courts, the Supreme Court did not consider this argument. This argument was addressed in foot note 2 of the Sereboff opinion.
7 ERISA PREEMPTION IS A STATE LAW PREEMPTED BY ERISA? Is the plan sponsored and maintained by employer? Law is not preempted by ERISA. Is the employer a governmental entity or a church? Does the law relate to employee benefit plans? Law is preempted by ERISA. Does the law regulate insurance? SELF-FUNDED Is plan self-funded or insured? INSURED Is the law a cause of action to enforce an ERISA plan?
8 FEHBA PREEMPTION QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1. What is FEHBA? FEHBA is the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act. This act gives the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM ) the ability to contract with health insurers to provide health benefits to federal employees. The OPM contracts with numerous insurers around the county. Although the terms of federal employee plan may differ from insurer to insurer, all contracts are approved by the OPM. 2. Does FEHBA have a preemption provision? Yes. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 8902(m)(1): The terms of any contract under [FEHBA] which relate to the nature, provision, or extent of coverage or benefits (including payments with respect to benefits) shall supersede and preempt any State or local law, or any regulation issued thereunder, which relates to health insurance or plans. 3. Do the federal courts have jurisdiction over FEHBA reimbursement claims? FEHBA vests the federal court with jurisdiction over claims by enrollees against the United States seeking payment of benefits. It does T mention claims by carriers seeking enforcement of the plans. Nevertheless, many carriers brought reimbursement actions in federal court under federal question jurisdiction, since the contract was created under federal law and was governed by a federal statute. The United States Supreme Court recently reviewed the federal jurisdiction in Empire Health Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 126 S.Ct (2006). McVeigh involved a FEHBA carrier who brought an action against a plan enrollee seeking enforcement of the plan s reimbursement provision. The district court dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Five days later, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court dismissal, holding that federal jurisdiction does exist for FEHBA reimbursement claims. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari on the McVeigh case to resolve the split among the circuits. In a 5-4 opinion authored by Justice Ginsburg, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the case of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In the decision, the Court acknowledged that federal jurisdiction can exist when state
9 law would: (1) present a significant conflict; (2) with a unique federal interest. The Court held that the FEHBA carrier had not shown that the application of state jurisdiction would conflict with the federal government s interest in enforcing the plan. Since McVeigh, the BCBS Association has maintained that there is federal jurisdiction in states that apply the make-whole doctrine. They continue to bring actions in federal court. In states where there is no law conflict with the FEHBA plan reimbursement provision, FEHBA actions must be brought in state court. 4. Doesn t FEHBA preempt state make-whole and common fund doctrines? On its face, FEHBA would appear to preempt any state laws such as the make whole doctrine and common fund doctrine. Unfortunately, the McVeigh decision calls into question the scope of FEHBA s preemptive power. Specifically, the Court issued a dictum stating: a reimbursement right of the kind asserted by Empire stems from a personal injury recovery, and the claim underlying that recovery is plainly governed by state law. This Court is not prepared to say, based on the representations made in this case, that under 8902(m)(1), and OPM-BCBSA contract term would displace every condition that state law places on that recovery. The full application of this dictum by the courts will be resolved through litigation. As of now, when a FEHBA contract specifically provides a right of reimbursement regardless of whether the plan member is made whole and regardless of the attorneys fees paid, we take the position that opposing state law is preempted by FEHBA.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION RICHARD BARNES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:13-cv-0068-DGK ) HUMANA, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER GRANTING DISMISSAL
More informationERISA, an Overview. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C et. seq.,
ERISA, an Overview The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1001 et. seq., known without affection as ERISA, was an effort by Congress to address the long term viability of Pension
More informationVolume Six, Issue Nine October 2003
Volume Six, Issue Nine October 2003 In This Issue Benefit Recoveries & Subrogation In this ninth issue of the McGraw Wentworth Benefit Advisor for 2003, we will discuss benefit recoveries. Benefit recoveries
More informationTRAPS TO AVOID IN PERSONAL INJURY CASES: SUBROGATION AND LIENS
TRAPS TO AVOID IN PERSONAL INJURY CASES: SUBROGATION AND LIENS Robert A. DeMetz, Jr. Morgan & Morgan Atlanta, PLLC 408 12 th Street Suite 200 Columbus, GA 31901 (706)478-1909 TRAPS TO AVOID IN PERSONAL
More informationSUBROGATION AND LIENS INCLUDING MEDICARE SET ASIDE REPORTING
SUBROGATION AND LIENS INCLUDING MEDICARE SET ASIDE REPORTING JUDY KOSTURA Judge, Kostura & Putman, P.C. The Commissioners House at Heritage Square 2901 Bee Cave Road, Building L Austin, Texas 78746 (512)
More informationCUTTING THE GORDIAN KNOT: RESOLVING LIENS AND REIMBURSEMENT CLAIMS. Materials by: Brett Newman, The Lien Resolution Group
CUTTING THE GORDIAN KNOT: RESOLVING LIENS AND REIMBURSEMENT CLAIMS Materials by: Brett Newman, The Lien Resolution Group LIEN CLAIMS AGAINST PERSONAL INJURY RECOVERIES WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW TODAY Brett
More informationERISA Litigation. ERISA Statute Fundamentals. What is ERISA, and where is the ERISA statute located? What is an ERISA plan?
ERISA Litigation Our expert attorneys have substantial experience representing third-party administrators, insurers, plans, plan sponsors, and employers in an array of ERISA litigation and benefits-related
More informationNewsletter Volume 1, No. 12 December 6, 2005
Highlights 1. FASB to Revisit How Employers Account for Pensions and Other Postretirement Benefits 2. IRS Issues Temporary Regulations that Formalize an Automatic Extension of Time to File Form 5500 3.
More informationCase3:09-cv MMC Document22 Filed09/08/09 Page1 of 8
Case:0-cv-0-MMC Document Filed0/0/0 Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 United States District Court For the Northern District of California NICOLE GLAUS,
More informationERISA & DISABILITY BENEFITS NEWSLETTER
ERIC BUCHANAN AND ASSOCIATES ABOUT OUR FIRM VOLUME 8, ISSUE 3, JUNE 2016 Eric Buchanan & Associates, PLLC is a full-service disability benefits, employee benefits, and insurance law firm. The attorneys
More informationEmployee Benefits Briefing
Employee Benefits Briefing A bulletin designed to keep clients and other friends informed on employee benefits law matters June 2006 U.S. Supreme Court Supports Subrogation with Limits To no one s surprise,
More informationVirtual Mentor American Medical Association Journal of Ethics May 2008, Volume 10, Number 5:
Virtual Mentor American Medical Association Journal of Ethics May 2008, Volume 10, Number 5: 307-311. HEALTH LAW ERISA: A Close Look at Misguided Legislation Lee Black, JD, LLM The Employee Retirement
More informationSHORT & LONG-TERM DISABILITY BENEFITS & WORKER S COMPENSATION CLAIMS:
SHORT & LONG-TERM DISABILITY BENEFITS & WORKER S COMPENSATION CLAIMS: A PRACTICAL GUIDE July 30, 2009 William E. Parsons HAWKS QUINDEL EHLKE & PERRY, S.C. 222 West Washington Avenue, Suite 450 Post Office
More informationQ UPDATE EXECUTIVE RISK SOLUTIONS CASES OF INTEREST D&O FILINGS, SETTLEMENTS AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
EXECUTIVE RISK SOLUTIONS Q1 2018 UPDATE CASES OF INTEREST U.S. SUPREME COURT FINDS STATE COURTS RETAIN JURISDICTION OVER 1933 ACT CLAIMS STATUTORY DAMAGES FOR VIOLATION OF TCPA FOUND TO BE PENALTIES AND
More information12 Pro Te: Solutio. edicare
12 Pro Te: Solutio edicare Medicare Secondary Payer Act TThe opportunity to resolve a lawsuit can present itself at almost any time during the course of personal injury litigation. A case may settle shortly
More informationPegram v. Herdrich, 90 days later By Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich
Pegram v. Herdrich, 90 days later By Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich More than a third of all Americans receive their healthcare through employersponsored managed care plans; that is, through plans subject to ERISA.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Carolina Care Plan, Inc., ) Civil Action No.:4:06-00792-RBH ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) O R D E R ) Auddie Brown Auto
More informationCase 3:11-cv WGY Document 168 Filed 01/10/13 Page 1 of 53 IN THE UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Case 3:11-cv-00282-WGY Document 168 Filed 01/10/13 Page 1 of 53 IN THE UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT HEALTHCARE STRATEGIES, INC., Plan Administrator of the Healthcare Strategies,
More informationD. Brian Hufford. Partner
D. Brian Hufford Partner D. Brian Hufford leads a national practice representing patients and health care providers in disputes with health insurance companies. Brian developed innovative and successful
More informationERISA. Representative Experience
ERISA RMKB s ERISA practice group has extensive experience representing insurance carriers, employers, plan administrators, claims administrators, and benefits plans against claims brought under the Employee
More informationSPECIAL REPORT: Lien Resolution in Personal Injury Cases
Call today: 757-399-7506. We help families navigate the legal maze and implement plans to secure their futures. SPECIAL REPORT: Lien Resolution in Personal Injury Cases When a personal injury settlement
More informationCicio v. Vytra Healthcare : Another Blow to the Defense of ERISA Preemption in Utilization Review Decisions
Cicio v. Vytra Healthcare : Another Blow to the Defense of ERISA Preemption in Utilization Review Decisions Prepared for BCS Insurance Company By: Ciara Ryan Frost Jodi R. Marvet Kerns, Pitrof, Frost &
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 11-1285 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- U.S. AIRWAYS,
More informationTop Ten Things You Should Know About Employee Benefits
Top Ten Things You Should Know About Employee Benefits AIDS Legal Referral Panel April 19, 2018 MCLE Training Kirsten Scott Renaker Hasselman Scott, LLP 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 944 San Francisco,
More informationCase 3:14-cv Document 1 Filed 05/12/14 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Case 3:14-cv-00671 Document 1 Filed 05/12/14 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT CIVIL ACTION NO. ) GERALD V. PASSARO II, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) BAYER CORPORATION
More informationWhere the Windfall Falls Short: Appropriate Equitable Relief after Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc.
Oklahoma Law Review Volume 61 Number 1 2008 Where the Windfall Falls Short: Appropriate Equitable Relief after Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc. Kristin L. Huffaker Follow this and additional
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Index No x.
Case 1:18-cv-06448 Document 1 Filed 07/17/18 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Index No. 18-6448 ---------------------------------------------------------x VINCENT
More informationEMPLOYER S BENEFITS AND ALTERNATIVES TO WORKER S COMPENSATION
EMPLOYER S BENEFITS AND ALTERNATIVES TO WORKER S COMPENSATION By William R. McIlhany INTRODUCTION By Gary A. Thornton Approximately 35% of the employers in Texas do not have worker s compensation insurance
More informationERISA Causes of Action *
1 ERISA Causes of Action * ERISA authorizes a variety of causes of action to remedy violations of the statute, to enforce the terms of a benefit plan, or to provide other relief to a plan, its participants
More information09/27/10 - Health Reform and ERISA
Page 1 of 12 09/27/10 - Health Reform and ERISA By Sara Rosenbaum Background Overview Enacted in 1974 with the overarching aim of protecting workers' pension plans, the Employee Retirement Income Security
More informationMEDICAID AND SECONDARY PAYOR ISSUES IN LITIGATION: SUBROGATION AND LIENS. Written by:
MEDICAID AND SECONDARY PAYOR ISSUES IN LITIGATION: SUBROGATION AND LIENS Written by: JUDY A. KOSTURA JUDGE, KOSTURA & PUTMAN, P.C. THE COMMISSIONER S HOUSE AT HERITAGE SQUARE 2901 Bee Cave Rd., Box L Austin,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ERIN SANBORN-ADLER, * v. * * No LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF * NORTH AMERICA, et al.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ERIN SANBORN-ADLER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. No. 11-20184 LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, et al. Defendants-Appellees. MOTION OF THE SECRETARY
More informationDaly D.E. Temchine Counsel
5 Daly D.E. Temchine Counsel New York 250 Park Avenue New York, New York 10177 Tel: 212-351-4591 Fax: 212-878-8600 dtemchine@ebglaw.com DALY D.E. TEMCHINE is Counsel in the Health Care and Life Sciences
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY RABRINDA CHOUDRY, and ) DEBJANI CHOUDRY, ) ) Defendants Below/Appellants, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. CPU4-12-000076 ) STATE OF
More informationMATTHEW KOBOLD, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant/Appellee, AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Third-Party Defendant/Appellant. No.
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE MATTHEW KOBOLD, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant/Appellee, v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Third-Party Defendant/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 12-0315 Appeal from the Superior
More informationSolutions. The facts of the latest. Subrogation Rights in Montanile Case. The Supreme Court Seeks. to the Latest Challenges to
The Supreme Court Seeks Solutions to the Latest Challenges to Subrogation Rights in Montanile Case Written by Catherine Dowie 4 The Self-Insurer www.sipconline.net The facts of the latest healthcare subrogation
More informationDeborah R. Bauer and Diane G. Wright, on behalf of themselves and those
274 Ga. App. 381 A05A0455. ADVANCEPCS et al. v. BAUER et al. PHIPPS, Judge. Deborah R. Bauer and Diane G. Wright, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against
More informationInsurer v. Insurer: The Bases of an Insurer s Right to Recover Payment From Another Insurer*
Insurer v. Insurer: The Bases of an Insurer s Right to Recover Payment From Another Insurer* By: Thomas F. Lucas McKenna, Storer, Rowe, White & Farrug Chicago A part of every insurer s loss evaluation
More informationGolden Gate Restaurant Association. Vs. City & County of San Francisco
A Special Report Prepared By: The Self-Insurance Institute of America, Inc. Golden Gate Restaurant Association Vs. City & County of San Francisco July 1, 2008 www.siia.org SIIA Special Report: Employer
More informationAppellant, Lower Court Case No.: CC O
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO- MOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NO.: CVA1-06 - 19 vs. CARRIE CLARK, Appellant, Lower Court Case
More informationRESEARCH MEMO. Sixth Circuit Court Case on Cutbacks to Post-Retirement Benefit Increases Generates Interest
2009-41 July 8, 2009 RESEARCH MEMO Sixth Circuit Court Case on Cutbacks to Post-Retirement Benefit Increases Generates Interest A recent decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals generated several
More informationEverything you need to know about Personal Injury Benefit Recoveries That Are Recoverable After You Settled Your Case
AFTER YOUR AUTO ACCIDENT PERSONAL INJURY CASE Everything you need to know about Personal Injury Benefit Recoveries That Are Recoverable After You Settled Your Case Personal Injury Benefit Recoveries That
More informationALI-ABA Course of Study Pension, Profit-Sharing, Welfare, and Other Compensation Plans. March 26-28, 2008 San Francisco, California
1 ALI-ABA Course of Study Pension, Profit-Sharing, Welfare, and Other Compensation Plans March 26-28, 2008 San Francisco, California What's New in Employee Benefits A Summary of Current Case and Other
More informationNegotiating Private Healthcare Liens and Insurance Subrogation Claims in Personal Injury Cases
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Negotiating Private Healthcare Liens and Insurance Subrogation Claims in Personal Injury Cases TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2018 1pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am
More informationThe Nuts and Bolts of ERISA Welfare Plans
The Nuts and Bolts of ERISA Welfare Plans 27th Annual National Institute on Health and Welfare Benefit Plans October 6-7, 2016 Presented by: Sally Doubet King Mark L. Stember Vanessa Scott Evolution of
More informationStakes Are High For ERISA Fiduciaries
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Stakes Are High For ERISA Fiduciaries Law360, New
More informationJerman And Its Effects On the Collection Industry
Jerman And Its Effects On the Collection Industry Presented By: Alan H. Weinberg, Managing Partner U.S. Supreme Court Only two Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) Cases have been before the United
More informationAN IN-DEPTH LOOK AT EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS AND UNCLAIMED PROPERTY LAWS
AN IN-DEPTH LOOK AT EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS AND UNCLAIMED PROPERTY LAWS Publication AN IN-DEPTH LOOK AT EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS AND UNCLAIMED PROPERTY LAWS Author Paul R. O'Rourke May 26, 2010 Some benefits
More informationNY CLS Gen Oblig (2004)
For more information please visit Strategic Capital Corporation at www.strategiccapital.com, or contact us at Toll Free: 1-866-256-0088 or email us at info@strategiccapital.com. NEW YORK CONSOLIDATED LAW
More informationLegal Issues in Healthcare Reimbursement Medicare Advantage ERISA MOON Section /9/2017
8/9/2017 Legal Issues in Healthcare Reimbursement Elizabeth S. Richards, Esq. August 17, 2017 1 Legal Issues in Healthcare Reimbursement Medicare Advantage ERISA MOON Section 1557 2 1 What is Medicare
More informationThe Cigna Decision: A Road Map to Dealing with Out-of-Network Providers
The Cigna Decision: A Road Map to Dealing with Out-of-Network Providers TAHFA & HFMA South Texas Fall Symposium September 13, 2016 1 INTRODUCTION Cigna v Humble The Roadmap Today we are going to talk about
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida CASE NO. BASIK EXPORTS & IMPORTS, INC., Petitioner, v. PREFERRED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL,
More informationSubrogating Fully-Insured ERISA AND NON-ERISA Employee Welfare Benefit Plans
Subrogating Fully-Insured ERISA AND NON-ERISA Employee Welfare Benefit Plans by Elizabeth A. Co, Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer, S.C., Hartford, Wisconsin Today, a growing number of health plans fall outside
More informationTHOMAS P. DORE, ET AL., SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEES. Wright, Arthur, Salmon, James P. (Retired, Specially Assigned),
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 0230 September Term, 2015 MARVIN A. VAN DEN HEUVEL, ET AL. v. THOMAS P. DORE, ET AL., SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEES Wright, Arthur, Salmon, James P. (Retired,
More informationALI-ABA Course of Study Insurance Industry and Financial Services Litigation. May 10-11, 2007 Chicago, Illinois. Update on ERISA Litigation
345 ALI-ABA Course of Study Insurance Industry and Financial Services Litigation May 10-11, 2007 Chicago, Illinois Update on ERISA Litigation By Elizabeth J. Bondurant, Esquire Andrea K. Cataland, Esquire
More informationCase: 1:16-cv Document #: 141 Filed: 12/06/17 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:1455
Case: 1:16-cv-04773 Document #: 141 Filed: 12/06/17 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:1455 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ARTUR A. NISTRA, on behalf of The ) Bradford Hammacher
More informationThe Impact of Dudenhoeffer on Lower Court Stock-Drop Cases
The Impact of Dudenhoeffer on Lower Court Stock-Drop Cases ALYSSA OHANIAN The Supreme Court recently held in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 134 S. Ct. 2459 (2014), that employer stock ownership plan
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF A & J BEVERAGE DISTRIBUTION, INC. (New Hampshire Department of Labor)
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More informationMEWAs Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA): A Guide to Federal and State Regulation
MEWAs Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA): A Guide to Federal and State Regulation U.S. Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
More informationMEDICARE SECONDARY PAYER ACT MANDATORY INSURER REPORTING
MEDICARE SECONDARY PAYER ACT MANDATORY INSURER REPORTING IS PLAINTIFF RECEIVING MEDICARE BENEFITS IS PLAINTIFF MEDICARE ELIGIBLE IS PLAINTIFF REASONABLY EXPECTED TO BECOME MEDICARE ELIGIBLE WITHIN 3O MONTHS
More informationFlorida Senate SB 1592
By Senator Thrasher 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 A bill to be entitled An act relating to civil remedies against insurers; amending s. 624.155, F.S.; revising
More informationMedicare Advantage and Prescription Drug Plans Have Secondary Payer Recovery Rights, Too, but Are They Just Like Medicare s Rights?
Medicare Advantage and Prescription Drug Plans Have Secondary Payer Recovery Rights, Too, but Are They Just Like Medicare s Rights? Mary Re Knack Ogden Murphy Wallace 901 5th Ave, Suite 3500 Seattle, WA
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT John B. Crawley, for himself, : Ann Crawley and Jean Crawley : : v. : No. 3:03cv734 (JBA) : Oxford Health Plans, Inc. : Ruling on Motion to Remand to
More informationERISA Subrogation After Montanile
Nebraska Law Review Volume 95 Issue 3 Article 2 2017 ERISA Subrogation After Montanile Colleen E. Medill University of Nebraska College of Law, cmedill2@unl.edu Alyssa M. Stokes University of Nebraska
More informationBackground Memorandum on State Laws and ERISA Preemption Prepared by Groom Law Group
July 27, 2007 Background Memorandum on State Laws and ERISA Preemption Prepared by Groom Law Group As Congress is considering how to address the problem of the working uninsured, one of the questions being
More informationA Notable Footnote In High Court Merit Management Decision
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com A Notable Footnote In High Court Merit Management
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 12 3067 LAWRENCE G. RUPPERT and THOMAS A. LARSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs Appellees, v. ALLIANT
More informationVan Camp & Bennion v. United States 251 F.3d 862 (9th Cir. Wash. 2001).
Van Camp & Bennion v. United States 251 F.3d 862 (9th Cir. Wash. 2001). CLICK HERE to return to the home page No. 96-36068. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted September
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ***************************************** * DR. CARL BERNOFSKY * CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff * NO. 98:-1577 * VERSUS * * SECTION "C"(5) TEACHERS
More informationRESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. (Pursuant to Section 245 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware)
RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. (Pursuant to Section 245 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware) AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a corporation organized
More informationTarget Date Funds Platform Investment Options
Target Date Funds Platform Investment Options The Evolving Tension Between Property Rights and Union Access Rights The California Experience By: Ted Scott and Sara B. Kalis, Littler Mendelson Kim Zeldin,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-10210 Document: 00513387132 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
More informationFIDUCIARY LIABILITY COVERAGE PART
FIDUCIARY LIABILITY COVERAGE PART I. INSURING AGREEMENTS Fiduciary Liability The Insurer shall pay Loss on behalf of the Insureds resulting from a Fiduciary Claim first made against the Insureds during
More informationCase 2:17-cv DAK Document 21 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH
Case 2:17-cv-00280-DAK Document 21 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH Kang Sik Park, M.D. v. Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER First American Title Insurance
More informationMEWAs. Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA): A Guide to Federal and State Regulation
MEWAs Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA): A Guide to Federal and State Regulation U.S. Department of Labor Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration
More informationAttacks on Health Reform and Developing Litigation Issues in Managed Care. Chris Flynn Jeff Poston
Attacks on Health Reform and Developing Litigation Issues in Managed Care Chris Flynn Jeff Poston Overview Current Constitutional Challenges to PPACA The Florida Action The Virginia Action 2 Overview (cont
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE CLIFTON CUNNINGHAM and DON TEED, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, -against- Plaintiffs, FEDERAL EXPRESS
More informationVol. 2014, No. 11 November 2014 Michael C. Sullivan, Editor-in-Chief
Vol. 2014, No. 11 November 2014 Michael C. Sullivan, Editor-in-Chief California Supreme Court Provides Guidance on the Commissioned Salesperson Exemption KARIMAH J. LAMAR... 415 CA Labor & Employment Bulletin
More informationCase 4:16-cv RGE-SBJ Document 65 Filed 02/22/18 Page 1 of 26
Case 4:16-cv-00650-RGE-SBJ Document 65 Filed 02/22/18 Page 1 of 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION DEBORAH INNIS, n/k/a DEE LANDRY DAWSON, on behalf
More informationRECENT ERISA LITIGATION WHERE FIDUCIARY AND PREEMPTION ISSUES ARE HEADED IN 2008
THE WAGNER LAW GROUP A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 99 SUMMER STREET, 13 TH FLOOR BOSTON, MA 02110 (617) 357-5200 FACSIMILE E-MAIL WEBSITE (617) 357-5250 marcia@wagnerlawgroup.com www.erisa-iawyers.com www.wagnerlawgroup.com
More informationVermont Bar Association 134 th Annual Meeting
Vermont Bar Association 134 th Annual Meeting Year in Review Insurance Law Seminar Materials Faculty Samuel Hoar, Jr., Esq. Paul J. Perkins, Esq. September 21, 2012 Lake Morey Resort, Fairlee, VT 2012
More informationSecond and Fifth Circuits Split on Who is Entitled to Whistleblower Protection Under Dodd-Frank
H Reprinted with permission from the Employee Relations LAW JOURNAL Vol. 41, No. 4 Spring 2016 SPLIT CIRCUITS Second and Fifth Circuits Split on Who is Entitled to Whistleblower Protection Under Dodd-Frank
More informationIn The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CV. DAVID MILLS, Appellant V. ADVOCARE INTERNATIONAL, LP, Appellee
Dismissed and Opinion Filed September 10, 2015 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-15-00769-CV DAVID MILLS, Appellant V. ADVOCARE INTERNATIONAL, LP, Appellee On Appeal from
More informationCase 3:09-cv N-BQ Document 201 Filed 05/16/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID 3204
Case 3:09-cv-01736-N-BQ Document 201 Filed 05/16/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID 3204 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD S OF LONDON
More informationEIGHT WAYS TO DEFEAT OR MINIMIZE ERISA REIMBURSEMENT CLAIMS
EIGHT WAYS TO DEFEAT OR MINIMIZE ERISA REIMBURSEMENT CLAIMS By Roger M. Baron 1 Reimbursement claims by ERISA plans continue to impede the efforts of Plaintiffs attorneys who try to secure just and fair
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit January 18, 2012 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Cross-
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA DR. CARL BERNOFSKY CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff NO. 98:-1577 VERSUS SECTION "C"(5) TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION & THE ADMINISTRATORS
More informationDecided: July 11, S13G1048. CARTER v. PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN INSURANCE. This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Carter
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: July 11, 2014 S13G1048. CARTER v. PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN INSURANCE. HINES, Presiding Justice. This Court granted a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in Carter
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
Humana Insurance Company et al v. Houston Methodist Hospital et al Doc. 32 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION United States District Court Southern
More informationThird party subrogation and reimbursement rights and the State of New York have
Much Needed Correction in the Second Circuit Is Relief (Equitable, That Is) Around the Corner? Third party subrogation and reimbursement rights and the State of New York have always had a bit of a contentious
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Thomas Pazo, individually and on behalf of all others individually situated, Plaintiff, vs. Incredible Adventures, Inc., a California
More informationEVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY FIDUCIARY LIABILITY INSURING AGREEMENT SPECIMEN
EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY EEO 40 614 (03 17) Policy Number: FIDUCIARY LIABILITY INSURING AGREEMENT In consideration of the premium paid and in reliance upon all statements made and information
More information401(k) Fee Litigation Update
October 6, 2008 401(k) Fee Litigation Update Courts Divide on Fiduciary Status of 401(k) Service Providers Introduction As the 401(k) fee lawsuits progress, the federal district courts continue to grapple
More informationDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2013 MT 331
November 6 2013 DA 12-0654 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2013 MT 331 JEANETTE DIAZ and LEAH HOFFMANN-BERNHARDT, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, v. Plaintiffs and
More informationFIGHTING FOR YOUR CLIENTS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS How to Handle an ERISA Benefit Appeal By Talia Ravis, esq. Law Office of Talia Ravis
FIGHTING FOR YOUR CLIENTS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS How to Handle an ERISA Benefit Appeal By Talia Ravis, esq. Law Office of Talia Ravis 1. Purpose. More often than not, insurance claimants seek legal assistance
More informationBNSF LOGISTICS TRANSLOADING AND CROSS-DOCKING PROVIDER TERMS AND CONDITIONS
BNSF LOGISTICS TRANSLOADING AND CROSS-DOCKING PROVIDER TERMS AND CONDITIONS The following Terms and Conditions are applicable to the transloading or cross-docking of any pallet, container, package, piece,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 538 U. S. (2003) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationNOTABLE RECENT DECISIONS IN ERISA LITIGATION
Washington New York San Francisco Silicon Valley San Diego London Brussels Beijing ERISA & Employee Benefits Litigation * * * * * NOTABLE RECENT DECISIONS IN ERISA LITIGATION November 2008 This advisory
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: Filing Date: April 30, 2014 Docket No. 32,779 SHERYL WILKESON, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiffs-Appellants, Defendants-Appellees.
Case: 17-10238 Document: 00514003289 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
More information