Pegram v. Herdrich
| Pegram v. Herdrich | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued February 23, 2000 Decided June 12, 2000 | |
| Full case name | Lori Pegram, et al., Petitioners v. Cynthia Herdrich |
| Citations | 530 U.S. 211 (more) 120 S. Ct. 2143; 147 L. Ed. 2d 164; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 3964 |
| Holding | |
| Because mixed treatment and eligibility decisions by health maintenance organization physicians are not fiduciary according to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, Herdrich does not state a claim under the Act. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Souter, joined by unanimous |
| Laws applied | |
| Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 | |
Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 does not provide a remedy for coverage determinations by health maintenance organizations.[1][2][3][4] The case is important because by excluding suits involving coverage determinations from the Act, it does not pre-empt state law remedies.
References
- ↑ Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211 (2000).
- ↑ Broyhill, Sara (January 1, 2000). "Death of a Remedy: The Supreme Court's Ill-fated Decision to Foreclose an Avenue of Liability against Managed Care Organizations under ERISA in Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211, 120 S. Ct. 2143 (2000)". Nebraska Law Review. 79 (3).
- ↑ Kelly, Dawn (March 8, 2016). "The Effect of Pegram v. Herdrich on HMO Liability". Touro Law Review. 17 (4). ISSN 8756-7326.
- ↑ Wasserman, Marni (April 1, 2001). "Pegram v. Herdrich: A Case Study in "Dual" Loyalties: Why "Cost-Cutting" Health Maintenance Organizations Should Be Held Liable for Cutting Medically Necessary Care". Connecticut Insurance Law Journal.
External links
- Text of Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211 (2000) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Internet Archive (docket files) Justia Library of Congress