TITLE

Prescription Drug Program Participants Do Not Have Standing to Bring Claim

PUB. DATE
January 2007
SOURCE
Legal-Legislative Reporter;Jan2007, Vol. 41 Issue 1, p12
SOURCE TYPE
Trade Publication
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
The article discusses a court case wherein the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that participants in a prescription drug plan have no right to sue their plans' fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) since they have no judicially cognizable injury. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant has secretly been keeping the spread between what it charges the plans for drugs and what it pays suppliers, in addition to earning fees from the plans.
ACCESSION #
27774002

 

Related Articles

  • State Court Made Valid QDRO Determination.  // Benefits & Compensation Digest;Nov2010, Vol. 47 Issue 11, p55 

    The article discusses a court case which determined whether a state-court-issued domestic relations order is considered as a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) under ERISA. In the case Mack v. Kuckenmeister et al., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld state courts'...

  • Status as Participant Is Not a Jurisdictional Issue Under ERISA.  // Benefits Magazine;May2012, Vol. 49 Issue 5, p59 

    The article discusses a court case wherein the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the plaintiff's participant status in the long-term disability plan of the defendant company qualifies his claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Prior to remanding the...

  • Ninth Circuit clarifies the scope and application of "surcharge" and "reformation" remedies under ERISA. Nadel, Darren E. // Ebn.benefitsnews.com;3/22/2012, p1 

    The article reports on the clarification of the Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit on the scope and application of surcharge and reformation remedies under the ERISA citing the case Cigna Corp. v. Amara in the U.S.

  • Retirement Annuities Did Not Establish ERISA Plan.  // Benefits Magazine;Apr2011, Vol. 48 Issue 4, p48 

    The article discusses a court case wherein U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that defendant union was not able to maintain or establish pension benefit under Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) when it marketed and endorsed tax-sheltered annuities. In the case...

  • Lower Court Holding.  // Supreme Court Debates;Nov2006, Vol. 9 Issue 8, p229 

    An excerpt from the opinion written by circuit judges of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on the case "Mathew Musladin v. Warden Anthony Lamarque" is presented.

  • Unvested Retiree Health Benefits Eliminate Jurisdictional Standing.  // Legal-Legislative Reporter;Dec2008, Vol. 42 Issue 12, p5 

    The article discusses a court case wherein the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by terminating health benefits without obtaining the union's agreement and argued that the defendant also violated its obligations under the...

  • QJSA Surviving Spouse Benefits Vest at Retirement and Cannot Be Reassigned.  // Legal-Legislative Reporter;Dec2008, Vol. 42 Issue 12, p7 

    The article discusses a court case wherein plaintiff A, the eighth wife of a participant, filed a suit against Plaintiff B, the ninth wife, and the plans under Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). It states that Plaintiff A seeks to enjoin any practice that violates the provisions of...

  • Plaintiffs Have Standing to Pursue Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims.  // Legal-Legislative Reporter;Oct2009, Vol. 43 Issue 10, p7 

    The article discusses a court case wherein the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that claims made by a class of plaintiffs asserting breach of fiduciary duties can be pursued and therefore permitted amendments to be made to the complaints. The plaintiffs cited Section 502(a)(2)...

  • Court Dismisses Joint Employer Theory of Liability.  // Legal-Legislative Reporter;Oct2009, Vol. 43 Issue 10, p9 

    The article discusses a court case wherein the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit concluded that unpaid contributions cannot be collected from an employer by trustees of a pension and health plan under the joint employer theory. Employers are required to contribute to employee benefit...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics