Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A ERISA Denial of Benefits Litigation: Avoiding Procedural and Substantive Landmines Navigating Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies, Discovery, Deference to Administrator's Decision, Statute of Limitations, and More TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2015 1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific Today’s faculty features: Byrne J. Decker , Partner, Pierce Atwood , Portland, Maine Medora A. Marisseau, Shareholder, Karr Tuttle Campbell , Seattle Nancy Pridgen, Partner, Monnolly Pridgen , Atlanta The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10 .
Tips for Optimal Quality FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY Sound Quality If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet connection. If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial 1-866-258-2056 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or e-mail sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem. If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. Viewing Quality To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again.
Continuing Education Credits FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY For CLE purposes, please let us know how many people are listening at your location by completing each of the following steps: In the chat box, type (1) your company name and (2) the number of • attendees at your location Click the SEND button beside the box • In order for us to process your CLE, you must confirm your participation by completing and submitting an Official Record of Attendance (CLE Form) to Strafford within 10 days following the program. The CLE form is included in your dial in instructions email and in a thank you email that you will receive at the end of this program. Strafford will send your CLE credit confirmation within approximately 30 days of receiving the completed CLE form. For additional information about CLE credit processing call us at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 35.
Program Materials FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please complete the following steps: Click on the ^ symbol next to “Conference Materials” in the middle of the left - • hand column on your screen. • Click on the tab labeled “Handouts” that appears, and there you will see a PDF of the slides for today's program. • Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open. Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon. •
ERISA DENIAL OF Medora Marisseau BENEFITS LITIGATION: Karr AVOIDING PROCEDURAL Tuttle AND SUBSTANTIVE Campbell LANDMINES Seattle mmarisseau@karrtuttle.com
EXHAUSTION OF Medora Marisseau ADMINISTRATIVE Karr Tuttle REMEDIES FOR ERISA Campbell BENEFIT CLAIMS Seattle 6
THE EXHAUSTION RULE Rule: A claimant must first avail herself or himself of a plan’s own internal review procedures before bringing suit. See Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co ., 134 S. Ct. 604, 610 (2013). Judge-made rule, not part of the ERISA statute. 7
WAIVER Affirmative Defense. Generally considered an affirmative defense (subject to waiver), not jurisdictional. Vaught v. Scottsdale Healthcare Corp. Health Plan , 546 F.3d 620, 627 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008); Crowell v. Shell Oil Co. , 541 F.3d 295, 308-09 (5th Cir. 2008); Paese v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co. , 449 F.3d 435, 445 (2d Cir. 2006); Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Price , 501 F.3d 271, 279-80 (3d Cir. 2007). 8
EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT MUST BE BASED ON THE TERMS OF THE PLAN What I s The “Plan”? A. The SPD is generally not the plan. Cigna Corp. v. Amara , 131 S. Ct. 1866, 1878 (2011); B. Exhaustion requirement found only in SPD generally not enforceable, unless the SPD and Plan are “one and the same.” Eugene S. v. Horizon BCBS of N.J ., 663 F.3d 1124 (10 th Cir. 2011); C. A plan’s integration clause precludes the administrator from binding insureds to exhaustion requirements in extraneous documents. See Pritchard v. MetLife Ins. Co ., 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 6553 (9th Cir. 2015)(group policy and certificate constitute “entire contract”); 9
EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT MUST BE BASED ON THE TERMS OF THE PLAN What Is The “Plan”? (continued) D. But, exhaustion requirement found in a denial review policy, which does not contradict, and is implicitly authorized by the plan, was enforceable. Holmes v. Colo. Coalition for the Homeless LTD Plan , 762 F.3d 1195 (10th 2014); E. However, denial letter cannot impose exhaustion requirement because explicit incorporation of extraneous claims procedures is required. Montoya v. Reliance Std. Life Ins. , 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 26044 (N.D. Cal. 2015). 10
EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT MUST BE UNAMBIGUOUS Examples: Requiring exhaustion of ERISA claims appeals “before the claim may be submitted to arbitration ” did not require exhaustion prior to filing lawsuit. Montoya v. Reliance Std. Life Ins. , 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 26044 (C.D. Cal. 2015). “Claimant may request a review of this determination” and “failure to request a review may constitute failure to exhaust” did not unambiguously require exhaustion. Id. Following a decision on 1 st level review, “We will also advise you of your further appeal rights, if any,” unambiguously allowed the Plan to enforce 2d level review, when communicated to the insured. Holmes, supra . 11
EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENTS ARE LIMITED BY THE ERISA CLAIMS REGULATIONS A. Claims procedures cannot require claimant to file more than two appeals of an adverse benefit decision before bringing a civil action; B. Plan cannot assert that a claimant has failed to exhaust administrative remedies because the claimant did not pursue a voluntary level of appeal provided by the plan; C. Voluntary levels of appeal may be pursued only after exhaustion of mandatory appeals. See 29 CFR § 2560.503-1(c)(2), (c)(3)(i), (iii). 12
EXHAUSTION AND ACA CLAIMS REGULATIONS A. ACA requirement of external review process does not require exhaustion of external review. Bailey v. Chevron Corp. Omn. Health Plan , 2014 U.S. Dist Lexis 76782 (C.D. Cal. 2014);29 CFR §2590.715- 2719(b)(2)(i). B. Adverse benefit determination definition expanded to include rescission, whether or not there is an effect on any particular benefit at the time, which is subject to ERISA claims regulations. 29 C.F.R. § 2590.715- 2719(b)(2)(ii)(A). 13
WHEN ARE CLAIMS “DEEMED EXHAUSTED”? A. Internal review procedures are not followed or full and fair review is denied, (29 USC §1133), unless substantial compliance is shown (e.g. violation is de minimus ). Examples: Untimely denial of claim, providing different denial reasons in 1 st and 2 nd level review decisions, using same decision makers in initial and appeals decisions. B. Failure to follow the additional ACA internal claims and appeals processes (for non-grandfathered health plans), including full and fair review regulatory requirements and culturally and linguistically appropriate notice. 29 CFR 2590.715- 2719(b)(2)(ii)(F). Examples: Failure to notify claimant of right to present evidence/testimony as part of claims process; failure to included denial code and its meaning, and standards used in decision; failure to provide, upon request, the dx and treatment codes and meanings, associated with an adverse decision. 14
WHEN ARE CLAIMS “DEEMED EXHAUSTED”? C. Pursuit of administrative remedies would be futile. Claimant has burden of proof, but dispute in circuits whether futility must be affirmatively pled. (Compare Byrd v. MacPapers, Inc ., 961 F.2d 157 (11 th Cir. 1992)(pleading exhaustion or futility is required) and Coats v. Kraft Foods , 12 F. Supp.2d 862 (N.D. Ill 1998)(granting dismissal based on allegations) with Almont Am. Sur. Ctr., LLC v. United Health Grp ., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 49954, *164 (dismissal due to failure to affirmatively plead exhaustion or futility improper). Evidentiary standard for showing futility (“clear and positive” indication that it is certain the claim will be denied on appeal) Examples: identical claims consistently denied; claims by similarly -situated claimants consistently denied; evidence of a fixed policy to deny such claims. 15
Recommend
More recommend
