Category: ERISA

Firing Employee Who Made Expensive Health Plan Claims Violated ERISA, Says Federal Court

ERISA doesn’t just protect the right to receive your benefits under the company benefit plan. It also prohibits your employer from retaliating against you or interfering with your claims for those benefits.

A recent decision from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (the federal appellate court that hears appeals from Pennsylvania and its neighboring states in the mid-Atlantic region) has an interesting illustration of ERISA’s protections from retaliation. Although the decision, Kairys v. Southern Pines Trucking, Inc., isn’t binding precedent on courts in Washington State, it’s still a useful application of ERISA’s protections against retaliation.

Shortly after Kairys was recruited as Southern Pines Trucking’s Vice President of Sales, he was diagnosed with degenerative arthritis. He required expensive treatment.

This treatment was covered by Southern Pines Trucking’s ERISA plan. The plan was self-funded, meaning that, instead of buying insurance to cover health claims, Southern Pines Trucking paid claims out of its own pocket. This is a not uncommon feature of ERISA-governed health plans. Among other things, self-funding can make it easier for the plan’s administrators to insulate their decisions about which claims to pay from judicial review.

Southern Pines Trucking wasn’t happy about paying for this. It terminated Kairys shortly after the bills came in. The company told Kariys his position was eliminated because there was no work for that role to perform. But it hired a part-time replacement to do the same work soon after terminating Kariys.

Kariys filed a lawsuit alleging, among other things, that the company violated ERISA by retaliating against him for using the company’s medical plan. The case went to trial. The jury found in favor of the company on several of Kariys’ claims.

But, because ERISA doesn’t allow for jury trials, the judge considered the evidence independently. The judge determined Kariys had proved the company fired him in retaliation for making medical benefit claims under the company health plan. It ordered the company to pay Kariys his lost wages and attorneys’ fees.

Southern Pines Trucking appealed that decision to the Third Circuit. First, the company argued that the jury’s finding against Kariys on his other claims should have required the judge to dismiss the ERISA claim. The Third Circuit disagreed. It decided the jury’s verdict, which was in the form of a “check the box” verdict slip, did not address the specific facts of Kariys’ ERISA claim.

The Third Circuit also found the evidence supported Kariys’ ERISA claim. Section 510 of ERISA makes it unlawful to fire workers for claiming benefits under an employee benefit plan. ERISA also prohibits terminating employees for the purpose of preventing them from claiming those benefits. In other words, ERISA prevents employers from either retaliating against employees for using their benefits in the past or from interfering with employees’ attempts to use those benefits in the future.

The appellate court had little difficulty determining the evidence supported a verdict against the company on those claims. It noted Kariys’ testimony that he was told to “lie low” because company leadership was angry at his expensive health plan claims. It rejected the company’s argument that it terminated Kariys for a lack of work, citing evidence that the company’s workload for that position varied on a monthly basis and that the company’s witness testimony about the supposed lack of work had never been disclosed before trial. And, it emphasized that Kariys had been a high performing employee who was paid a bonus a week before being fired, with no documentation explaining the decision to terminate him. Perhaps most importantly, the company leadership admitted under oath that they may have reviewed health claim invoices shortly before making the decision to fire Kariys.

This decision is an excellent illustration of the facts that are important to prove a claim for illegal retaliation under ERISA.

Ninth Circuit Ruling Elevates Hidden Fine Print to Reduce ERISA Plan Benefit

If you were to poll the public on why lawyers or the legal system get a bad rap, the experience of getting surprised by something sneaky the other party buried in the fine print might rank high on the list. That was the outcome in Haddad v. SMG Long Term Disability Plan, decided February 10, 2023. There, the Ninth Circuit ruled that an ERISA plan could reduce a former employee’s benefit payments based on inconspicuous language hidden in the benefit plan documents.

Mr. Haddad, like many folks, had long-term disability coverage through his employer’s benefit plan. He became disabled and the plan paid him the benefits.

But the plan reduced his benefits. The insurance company administering the plan decided Mr. Haddad’s settlement with a third party amounted to “lost wages.” The terms of the benefit plan allowed disability benefits to be reduced if the disabled employee had been compensated for lost wages.

Mr. Haddad sued. He argued that the “lost wages” reduction was hidden in the benefit plan documents’ fine print. He pointed to earlier Ninth Circuit rulings that any limitations should be conspicuous and that employees shouldn’t “have to hunt for exclusions or limitations in the policy.”

The Ninth Circuit said this rule didn’t apply to Mr. Haddad. It ruled that reductions in benefit payments on the basis of an “offset” were different from reduced payments due to an “exclusion” or “limitation.” The opinion does not elaborate on whether the average non-lawyer would find the distinction meaningful.

The ruling is “unpublished”, meaning it shouldn’t be relied on as binding precedent for lower courts.

Ninth Circuit Considers When Death By Drunk Driving Is “Accidental”

Is death “accidental” when a person gets in a fatal car crash while over the legal alcohol limit? Courts have had a hard time answering this question. A recent Ninth Circuit ruling provides some clarity.

In Wolf v. Life Insurance Company of North America, the Ninth Circuit held that death resulting from drunk driving was “accidental” for purposes of insurance policy coverage.

In that case, the insured died after driving 65 miles per hour going the wrong way on a one-way road with a 10 mile per hour speed limit. An autopsy found he had a blood-alcohol level of 0.20%.

His family made an insurance claim with Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA). LINA had sold the deceased an insurance policy covering “accidental” death.

LINA denied the claim. It determined that death under these circumstances was not “accidental” because it was foreseeable that driving with a 0.20% blood-alcohol level would result in death or serious injury.

The family filed a lawsuit contesting the denial under ERISA. The Seattle federal court sided with the family. The court ruled that the decedent’s behavior was “extremely reckless” but did not make death so certain as to render it not “accidental”. LINA appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Ninth Circuit agreed with the lower court. It acknowledged that courts have applied different tests to determine whether death under these circumstances is “accidental.” It decided that the most appropriate question is whether death was “substantially certain” to occur: if death is substantially certain, it can’t be accidental.

Applying that test, the Ninth Circuit agreed that death was accidental. Although the insured’s behavior was reckless, it did not make death substantially certain. The court emphasized: “there is no doubt that drunk driving is ill-advised, dangerous, and easily avoidable.” But death was still accidental.

The court concluded with the truism that insurers who don’t want to cover death resulting from drunk driving should just add an explicit exclusion to their policies:

The solution for insurance companies like [LINA] is
simple: add an express exclusion in policies covering
accidental injuries for driving while under the influence of
alcohol, or for any other risky activity that the company
wishes to exclude….This would allow policyholders to form reasonable expectations about what type of coverage they are purchasing without having to make sense of conflicting bodies of caselaw that deal with obscure issues of contractual interpretation.

Summer News Roundup: Bans on Credit Scoring, Bertha the Tunnel Machine, Bargains for Arbitration in ERISA Plans, and Benefit Managers

Courts had a busy summer on insurance and ERISA issues.

A Washington State judge struck down the Washington Insurance Commissioner’s ban on using credit scores to price insurance. The judge acknowledged that using credit scores (which are a proxy for poverty) has a discriminatory impact. Insureds with low credit scores pay more for insurance even if they present a low risk to the insurer. But the judge found that the legislature, not the Insurance Commissioner, has the authority to ban the practice.

The Washington Supreme Court held that there was no insurance coverage for damage to the machine used to bore the tunnel for the replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle (affectionately nicknamed “Bertha” after Seattle’s former mayor). The machine broke down during the project in 2013. It was determined the machine suffered from a design defect. The Supreme Court held that the design defect fell within the scope of an exclusion in the applicable insurance policy for “machinery breakdown.”

Employers asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that ERISA disputes should go to arbitration. Several courts have decided that certain types of lawsuits alleging violations of ERISA’s fiduciary duties cannot be forced into arbitration. The reason is that the plaintiff in these cases sues on behalf of the governing employee benefit plan. ERISA treats such a plan as a separate legal entity. Therefore, an individual employee’s signature on an employment contract with an arbitration clause in the fine print does not bar that employee from suing on behalf of the ERISA plan–at least according to these courts. If the Supreme Court steps in, that could change.

The Supreme Court declined to revisit a case holding that ERISA allows health plans to pay high prescription drug prices. The plaintiffs argued that their health plan’s administrator (called a Pharmacy Benefit Manager) acted as a fiduciary under ERISA when it set the prices the health plan and its participating employees paid for prescription drugs. As an ERISA fiduciary, the administrator would have an obligation to act in the best interest of the participating employees when setting drug prices. The Supreme Court’s decision not to take up the case leaves in place the lower court’s ruling that these administrators were not subject to ERISA’s fiduciary duties.

Insurers’ Ability to Deny Claims “Because We Said So” Limited in Proposed Amendment to ERISA

One question that’s important in deciding an ERISA-governed insurance claim is: who decides? ERISA plans typically provide an employee or beneficiary receives a benefit under certain criteria. For instance, a health plan might provide for payment of medical bills if the treatment was “medically necessary,” a disability benefit plan might pay a portion of an employee’s wages if she can’t perform the “material and substantial” duties of her job, and so on.

Where a dispute arises over whether the plan should have paid these benefits, who decides whether these criteria are satisfied?

Since ERISA provides employees with a right to file a lawsuit in federal court to recover their benefits, you might assume the judge decides. But that’s often not the case.

A 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision interpreted ERISA as allowing employee benefit plans to provide discretion to the plan’s decision-makers. This means that an employee benefit plan can empower itself or its agents with “discretion” to determine facts and interpret the terms of the plan. Where the plan’s decision-maker has discretion, federal courts often are not allowed to overrule them.

In other worse, these types of discretionary provisions in ERISA plans invite the decision-maker to deny claims for benefits based on little more than “because we said so.” And when the employee sues to get their benefits, the federal court is often not allowed to say that the decision-maker got their facts wrong or misread the benefit criteria. The judge can often do little more than send the case back to the same decision makers for another look.

Because many employee benefits are funded through an insurance policy, the person with this discretion is often an insurance company. Insurance companies, as the late Justice Scalia aptly observed, have a powerful incentive to abuse this discretion because they profit with every claim they reject.

New legislation was recently proposed to change this. The “Employee and Retiree Access to Justice Act of 2022” would amend ERISA to forbid this kind of “discretionary” language in ERISA plans. It would require insurers and other decision-makers who deny claims for benefits under ERISA plans to defend their decisions in court on the merits. They would no longer be able to point to their “discretion” and argue that the judge is forbidden from disagreeing with their decision.