Can The Company Deny Your ERISA Claim “Because We Said So?”

Who decides whether a person’s entitled to coverage under an ERISA plan?  Given ERISA gives plan participants the right to take the company to court to dispute coverage denials, you might think the judge decides.  But the answer’s not that simple.  Often, the insurer itself can decide whether you’re covered under the terms of the plan, and the judge in a lawsuit is not always allowed to tell the company it was wrong.

Most ERISA benefit plans contain language in which the plan gives itself (or the administrator it hires) unlimited discretion to decide who’s entitled to benefits.  These are called “discretionary clauses.”  For example, employer-sponsored health coverage might only cover surgery or prescriptions that are “medically necessary” and give the plan itself the unlimited right to decide what is “medically necessary.”  These provisions effectively allow your insurance plan to decide you aren’t entitled to coverage “because we said so,” even if a judge decides the weight of the evidence shows you’re entitled to coverage.

That’s because the U.S. Supreme Court decided, in the Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.  v. Bruch case, that “discretionary clauses” mean the judge in an ERISA lawsuit must defer to the company’s decision – even if the judge decides the company was wrong – unless the decision was so badly made that it was “arbitrary and capricious.”  For instance, if the company decides the surgery your doctor recommended isn’t “medically necessary,” even though six physicians say you need the surgery and only one says it’s unnecessary, the court can’t say the company got it wrong.  Where there’s a discretionary clause, the court can only disagree with the company’s decision if the company’s decision was not just wrong but “arbitrary and capricious.”

Surprising nobody, after the Firestone decision, every ERISA plan promptly added discretionary clauses making it easier for the company to deny claims.

Fortunately for plan participants, voters in many states, including Washington State, responded by enacting legislation prohibiting discretionary clauses.

The upshot is plan participants in states like Washington where discretionary clauses are unlawful have a significantly better chance at obtaining coverage for surgery, prescriptions, disability benefits or other ERISA-governed benefits because the company can’t deny claims simply “because we said so.”