What is ERISA? ERISA is an acronym for the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a law passed by Congress in 1974 aimed at protecting the rights of employees who participate in their employers’ benefit plans and their dependents. ERISA applies to a host of employee benefits – pensions, 401k and 403b plans, disability, health, and […]
What is the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit in relation to benefit claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act? It’s a trick question because the ERISA statute does not prescribe a statute of limitations for claims seeking recovery of benefits under Section 502(a)(1)(B) of the act.[1] Consequently, in determining the timeliness of […]
The availability of health insurance coverage for treatment of mental health conditions recently took a huge step forward with the entry of judgment by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Wit v. United Behavioral Health.[1] After the issuance of a ruling in 2019 finding United Behavioral Health, or UBH — a UnitedHealth Group […]
Employee Retirement Income Security Act civil procedure often departs in significant respects from the normal civil procedure utilized uniformly by federal courts in all civil actions in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. One aspect of ERISA civil procedure that is especially questionable despite its near-uniform acceptance by the federal judiciary is the […]
Courts are often stymied by how to conclude Employee Retirement Income Security Act benefit claim litigation, but not U.S. District Judge Fernando Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In Tam v. First Unum Life Insurance Co. on Sept. 30,[1] the court decisively ruled for the plaintiff, Sandra Tam, in […]
How should federal courts conduct a de novo review of Employee Retirement Income Security Act benefit claims? One approach was delineated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 2009 in Krolnik v. Prudential Insurance Company of America.[1] There, the court pronounced the phrase “de novo review” as “misleading” and explained the de novo review standard […]