Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila

Decision Date21 June 2004
Docket NumberNo. 02-1845.,02-1845.
PartiesAETNA HEALTH INC., FKA AETNA U. S. HEALTHCARE INC., ET AL. v. DAVILA
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Respondents brought separate Texas state-court suits, alleging that petitioners, their health maintenance organizations (HMOs), had refused to cover certain medical services in violation of an HMO's duty "to exercise ordinary care" under the Texas Health Care Liability Act (THCLA), and that those refusals "proximately caused" respondents' injuries. Petitioners removed the cases to federal courts, claiming that the actions fit within the scope of, and were thus completely pre-empted by, § 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The District Courts agreed, declined to remand the cases to state court, and dismissed the complaints with prejudice after respondents refused to amend them to bring explicit ERISA claims. Consolidating these and other cases, the Fifth Circuit reversed. It found that respondents' claims did not fall under ERISA § 502(a)(2), which allows suit against a plan fiduciary for breaches of fiduciary duty to the plan, because petitioners were being sued for mixed eligibility and treatment decisions that were not fiduciary in nature, see Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U. S. 211; and did not fall within the scope of § 502(a)(1)(B), which provides a cause of action for the recovery of wrongfully denied benefits, because THCLA did not duplicate that cause of action, see Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran, 536 U. S. 355.

Held: Respondents' state causes of action fall within ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B), and are therefore completely pre-empted by ERISA § 502 and removable to federal court. Pp. 207-221.

(a) When a federal statute completely pre-empts a state-law cause of action, the state claim can be removed. See Beneficial Nat. Bank v. Anderson, 539 U. S. 1, 8. ERISA is such a statute. Because its purpose is to provide a uniform regulatory regime, ERISA includes expansive pre-emption provisions, such as ERISA § 502(a)'s integrated enforcement mechanism, which are intended to ensure that employee benefit plan regulation is "exclusively a federal concern," Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 451 U. S. 504, 523. Any state-law cause of action that duplicates, supplements, or supplants ERISA's civil enforcement remedy conflicts with clear congressional intent to make that remedy exclusive, and is therefore pre-empted. ERISA § 502(a)'s pre-emptive force is still stronger. Since ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B)'s pre-emptive force mirrors that of § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U. S. 58, 65-66, and since § 301 converts state causes of actions into federal ones for purposes of determining the propriety of removal, so too does ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B). Pp. 207-209.

(b) If an individual, at some point in time, could have brought his claim under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B), and where no other independent legal duty is implicated by a defendant's actions, then the individual's cause of action is completely pre-empted by ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B). Respondents brought suit only to rectify wrongful benefits denials, and their only relationship with petitioners is petitioners' partial administration of their ERISA-regulated benefit plans; respondents therefore could have brought § 502(a)(1)(B) claims to recover the allegedly wrongfully denied benefits. Both respondents allege violations of the THCLA's duty of ordinary care, which they claim is entirely independent of any ERISA duty or the employee benefits plans at issue. However, respondents' claims do not arise independently of ERISA or the plan terms. If a managed care entity correctly concluded that, under the relevant plan's terms, a particular treatment was not covered, the plan's failure to cover the requested treatment would be the proximate cause of any injury arising from the denial. More significantly, the THCLA provides that a managed care entity is not subject to THCLA liability if it denies coverage for a treatment not covered by the plan it administers. Pp. 210-214.

(c) The Fifth Circuit's reasons for reaching its contrary conclusion are all erroneous. First, it found significant that respondents asserted tort, rather than contract, claims and that they were not seeking reimbursement for benefits denied. However, distinguishing between pre-empted and non-pre-empted claims based on the particular label affixed to them would allow parties to evade ERISA's pre-emptive scope simply by relabeling contract claims as claims for tortious breach of contracts. And the fact that a state cause of action attempts to authorize remedies beyond those that ERISA § 502(a) authorizes does not put it outside the scope of ERISA's civil enforcement mechanism. See, e.g., Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U. S. 41, 43. Second, the court believed the plans' wording immaterial because the claims invoked an external ordinary care duty, but the wording is material to the state causes of action and the THCLA creates a duty that is not external to respondents' rights under their respective plans. Finally, nowhere in Rush Prudential did this Court suggest that ERISA § 502(a)'s pre-emptive force is limited to state causes of action that precisely duplicate an ERISA § 502(a) cause. Nor would it be consistent with this Court's precedent to do so. Pp. 214-216.

(d) Also unavailing is respondents' argument that the THCLA is a law regulating insurance that is saved from pre-emption by ERISA § 514(b)(2)(A). This Court's understanding of § 514(b)(2)(A) is informed by the overpowering federal policy embodied in ERISA § 502(a), which is intended to create an exclusive federal remedy, Pilot Life, 481 U. S., at 52. Allowing respondents to proceed with their state-law suits would "pose an obstacle" to that objective. Ibid. Pp. 216-218.

(e) Pegram's holding that an HMO is not intended to be treated as a fiduciary to the extent that it makes mixed eligibility decisions acting through its physicians is not implicated here because petitioners' coverage decisions are pure eligibility decisions. A benefit determination under ERISA is part and parcel of the ordinary fiduciary responsibilities connected to the administration of a plan. That it is infused with medical judgments does not alter this result. Pegram itself recognized this principle, see 530 U. S., at 231-232. And ERISA and its implementing regulations confirm this interpretation. Here, petitioners are neither respondents' treating physicians nor those physicians' employees. Pp. 218-221.

307 F. 3d 298, reversed and remanded.

THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. GINSBURG, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which BREYER, J., joined, post, p. 222.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.

Miguel A. Estrada argued the cause for petitioners in both cases. With him on the briefs in No. 02-1845 were Mark A. Perry, J. Edward Neugebauer, John B. Shely, Kendall M. Gray, and Roy T. Englert, Jr. On the briefs in No. 03-83 were Robert N. Eccles and Jonathan D. Hacker.

James A. Feldman argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Clement, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, Howard M. Radzely, Allen H. Feldman, Nathaniel I. Spiller, and Edward D. Sieger.

David Mattax, Assistant Attorney General of Texas, argued the cause for the State of Texas et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance. With him on the brief were Greg Abbott, Attorney General, Barry R. McBee, First Assistant Attorney General, Edward D. Burbach, Deputy Attorney General, R. Ted Cruz, Solicitor General, Rance L. Craft and Kristofer S. Monson, Assistant Solicitors General, and Anabelle Rodríguez, Secretary of Justice of Puerto Rico, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Bill Lockyer of California, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, M. Jane Brady of Delaware, Lisa Madigan of Illinois, Phill Kline of Kansas, Charles C. Foti, Jr., of Louisiana, J. Joseph Curran, Jr., of Maryland, Mike Hatch of Minnesota, Jeremiah W. "Jay" Nixon of Missouri, Mike McGrath of Montana, Brian Sandoval of Nevada, Patricia A. Madrid of New Mexico, Eliot Spitzer of New York, Jim Petro of Ohio, W. A. Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma, Hardy Myers of Oregon, Mark L. Shurtleff of Utah, William H. Sorrell of Vermont, and Christine O. Gregoire of Washington.

George Parker Young argued the cause for respondents in both cases. With him on the brief was Eric Schnapper.

JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

In these consolidated cases, two individuals sued their respective health maintenance organizations (HMOs) for alleged failures to exercise ordinary care in the handling of coverage decisions, in violation of a duty imposed by the Texas Health Care Liability Act (THCLA), Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 88.001-88.003 (West 2004 Supp. Pamphlet). We granted certiorari to decide whether the individuals' causes of action are completely pre-empted by the "interlocking, interrelated, and interdependent remedial scheme," Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134, 146 (1985), found at § 502(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 891, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a) et seq. 540 U. S. 981 (2003). We hold that the causes of action are completely pre-empted and hence removable from state to federal court. The Court of Appeals, having reached a contrary conclusion, is reversed.

I
A

Respondent Juan Davila is a participant, and respondent Ruby Calad is a beneficiary, in ERISA-regulated employee benefit plans. Their respective plan sponsors had entered into agreements with petitioners, Aetna Health Inc. and CIGNA Healthcare of Texas, Inc., to administer the plans. Under Davila's plan, for instance, Aetna reviews requests for coverage and pays providers, such as doctors, hospitals,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2300 cases
  • Dual Diagnosis Treatment Ctr., Inc. v. Blue Cross California, Case No.: SA CV 15-0736-DOC (DFMx)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • 22 Noviembre 2016
    ...ERISA preempts any state laws which would conflict with its exclusive remedial scheme in 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a). Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 209 (2004). Injuries that derive solely from ERISA, such as a failure to pay benefits, cannot be used as the injury in fact or economic lo......
  • N.C. Baptist Hosps., Inc. v. Dula
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina
    • 3 Agosto 2020
    ...court unless the plaintiff's complaint establishes that the case ‘arises under’ federal law." Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila , 542 U.S. 200, 207, 124 S.Ct. 2488, 159 L.Ed.2d 312 (2004) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Tr. S. Cal. , 463 U.S. 1, 10, 1......
  • Speer v. City of New London
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • 30 Abril 2021
    ...unless the plaintiff's complaint establishes that the case arises under federal law.’ ") (quoting Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila , 542 U.S. 200, 207–08, 124 S.Ct. 2488, 159 L.Ed.2d 312 (2004) ); see also First Am. Casino Corp. v. Eastern Pequot Nation , 175 F. Supp. 2d 205, 207 (D. Conn. 2000)......
  • Flam v. Flam
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 3 Marzo 2016
    ...legal duty that is implicated by a defendant's actions. Fossen, 660 F.3d at 1107-08; Marin Gen., 581 F.3d at 946; see Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 210 (2004). Because this "two-prong test . . . is in the conjunctive, a state-law cause of action is preempted by [ERISA § 502(a)]......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 firm's commentaries
  • Complete Versus Conflict Preemption In ERISA Cases
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 13 Enero 2014
    ...to federal court unless the plaintiff's complaint establishes that the case 'arises under' federal law." Aetna Health, Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 207 (2004) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983)). "The [well pleaded compl......
  • The ERISA Litigation Newsletter - November 2012
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 14 Noviembre 2012
    ...2010-01, p. 7. 17 76 FR 37208-01, available here; DOL Tech. Rel. 2011-02, available here. 18 Id. 19 Id. 20 Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 218-20 21 29 C.F.R. § 2509.75-8, Q&A D-2 (non-fiduciary, ministerial functions include: determining eligibility for benefits, calculating......
  • The ERISA Litigation Newsletter - April 2015
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 17 Abril 2015
    ...Bloomberg, BNA. Reprinted with permission. [1] Conkright v. Frommert, 130 S. Ct. 1640, 1649 (2010) (quoting Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200 215 [2] City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 722 (1978) (refusing to impose retroactive liability based o......
  • The ERISA Litigation Newsletter - December 2011
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 14 Diciembre 2011
    ...for enacting ERISA in the first place: to provide a "uniform regulatory regime over employee benefits plans." Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 208 Unfortunately, there appears to be no prospects for a near-term solution that will restore uniformity to the law governing these claim......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 books & journal articles
  • Forum Selection: Venue, Forum Non Conveniens, & Removal
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Illinois Pretrial Practice. Volume 1 - 2018 Contents
    • 9 Agosto 2018
    ...[28 USC §1343.] • Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) claims. [“ERISA” 29 USC §1132(a) et seq.; Aetna Health, Inc v. Davila, 542 US 200, 159 L. Ed. 2d 312, 124 S. Ct. 2488 (2004).] • Federal income tax disputes. [28 USC §1340.] • National Labor Relations Act and related labor ......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Pretrial Practice. Volume 1-2 Volume 2
    • 5 Mayo 2013
    ...— Eastland 1967, no writ), §10:211 Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Specia , 849 SW2d 805 (Tex 1993), §37:303 Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila , 542 U.S. 200, 207 (2004), §9:488-89 Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates , Inc ., 483 US 143 (1987), §3:220 Agnew v. Coleman County Electric Cooper......
  • Subject Matter Jurisdiction
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Illinois Pretrial Practice. Volume 1 - 2016 Contents
    • 10 Agosto 2016
    ...If the claim falls under ERISA, all state actions or regulations are preempted by the federal act. [See Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila , 542 US 200, 159 L. Ed. 2d 312, 124 S. Ct. 2488 (2004).] (Rev. 12, 9/16) §6:202 ILLINOIS PRETRIAL PRACTICE 6-28 If the underlying federal issue has been resol......
  • Forum Selection: Venue, Forum Non Conveniens, & Removal
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Illinois Pretrial Practice - Volume 1
    • 1 Mayo 2020
    ...[28 USC §1343.] • Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) claims. [“ERISA” 29 USC §1132(a) et seq.; Aetna Health, Inc v. Davila, 542 US 200, 159 L. Ed. 2d 312, 124 S. Ct. 2488 (2004).] • Federal income tax disputes. [28 USC §1340.] • National Labor Relations Act and related labor ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT