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 05/17/2011 CIGNA v. Amara
- Posted on 03/29/2011 Bloomberg Markets' article on ERISA
- Posted on 12/24/2010 James F. v. CIGNA Behavioral Health Inc.
News
- Posted on 07/11/2019 Timothy D. v. Aetna Health and Life Ins. Co.
- Posted on 06/24/2019 Family says insurance fails to pay for mental health coverage despite medical necessity
- Posted on 04/24/2006 Eliminating Discretionary Clauses in Insurance Policies