Abstract
As the shield preempting state suits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) has been successfully pierced (see California Div. Of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Constr. N.A. Inc., 519 U.S. 316 (1997) and Duke v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 57 F.3d 350 (3rd Cir. 1995)), plaintiff attorneys have begun to use the ERISA statute itself to further litigation against managed care organizations. The court in Shea v. Esensten, 107 F.3d 625 (8th Cir. 1997), held in a landmark decision that an HMO's failure to disclose financial incentives that discourage a treating physician from providing essential health care referrals for conditions covered under the plan benefit structure is a breach of ERISA's fiduciary duties.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
