Join The Conversation
Don Levit
11/17/2008 01:47 PM
Brian:
Thanks for posting this case.
On pages 14 and 26, the decision stated that only payments are required of employers, not benefits.
Couldn't the other side argue that the plan is still an ERISA plan, albeit a defined contribution plan (that buys a certain amount of undetermined benefits), rather than a defined benefits plan (that requires a certain amount of contributions). And, whether or not the employer sets up an ERISA plan, or sets up a plan (an ongoing scheme), a plan is still required?
Don Levit
Brian S. King
11/17/2008 01:47 PM
I agree Don. I think the decision cuts too fine in its analysis on that point.
Post A Comment
Articles
- Posted on 09/24/2010 Testimony of Judge William Acker Before Senate Finance Committee
- Posted on 09/18/2010 DeBofsky Senate Testimony
- Posted on 01/05/2010 Preliminary Injunction in C/HCA, et. al., v. Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield of Utah
FAQs
- ?What information should be include when submitting the "Get Help Now" survey?
- ?How do you know if we are the right firm for your case?
- ?What is ERISA?
- ?How does ERISA protect my rights?
- ?Does ERISA do a good job of protecting consumers?
- ?What is an ERISA Summary Plan Description?
- ?When should I get a lawyer involved to help me?
- ?How long does it take for a claim to be resolved?
News
- Posted on 10/05/2005 Welcome to the Website of Brian S. King
- Posted on 10/05/2005 Visit Healthcare Recovery Solutions Online