Corcoran v. United HealthCare, Inc.
Decision Date | 26 June 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 91-3322,91-3322 |
Citation | 965 F.2d 1321 |
Parties | , 15 Employee Benefits Cas. 1793 Florence B. CORCORAN Wife of/and Wayne D. Corcoran, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED HEALTHCARE, INC., and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
C. Scott Labarre, Wendell H. Gauthier, Gauthier & Murphy, Susan M. Chehardy, Gennusa, Brandt, McDonald & Plaia, Metairie, La., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Lawrence S. Kullman, New Orleans, La., Stephen R. Bruce, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae La. Trial Lawyers Ass'n.
Robert K. McCalla, Julia S. Mandala, McCalla, Thompson, Pyburn & Ridley, New Orleans, La., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before THORNBERRY, KING, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
This appeal requires us to decide whether ERISA pre-empts a state-law malpractice action brought by the beneficiary of an ERISA plan against a company that provides "utilization review" services to the plan. We also address the availability under ERISA of extracontractual damages. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that ERISA both pre-empted the plaintiffs' medical malpractice claim and precluded them from recovering emotional distress damages. We affirm.
The basic facts are undisputed. Florence Corcoran, a long-time employee of South Central Bell Telephone Company (Bell), became pregnant in early 1989. In July, her obstetrician, Dr. Jason Collins, recommended that she have complete bed rest during the final months of her pregnancy. Mrs. Corcoran applied to Bell for temporary disability benefits for the remainder of her pregnancy, but the benefits were denied. This prompted Dr. Collins to write to Dr. Theodore J. Borgman, medical consultant for Bell, and explain that Mrs. Corcoran had several medical problems which placed her "in a category of high risk pregnancy." Bell again denied disability benefits. Unbeknownst to Mrs. Corcoran or Dr. Collins, Dr. Borgman solicited a second opinion on Mrs. Corcoran's condition from another obstetrician, Dr. Simon Ward. In a letter to Dr. Borgman, Dr. Ward indicated that he had reviewed Mrs. Corcoran's medical records and suggested that "the company would be at considerable risk denying her doctor's recommendation." As Mrs. Corcoran neared her delivery date, Dr. Collins ordered her hospitalized so that he could monitor the fetus around the clock. 1
Mrs. Corcoran was a member of Bell's Medical Assistance Plan (MAP or "the Plan"). MAP is a self-funded welfare benefit plan which provides medical benefits to eligible Bell employees. It is administered by defendant Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama (Blue Cross) pursuant to an Administrative Services Agreement between Bell and Blue Cross. The parties agree that it is governed by ERISA. 2 Under a portion of the Plan known as the "Quality Care Program" (QCP), participants must obtain advance approval for overnight hospital admissions and certain medical procedures ("pre-certification"), and must obtain approval on a continuing basis once they are admitted to a hospital ("concurrent review"), or plan benefits to which they otherwise would be entitled are reduced.
QCP is administered by defendant United HealthCare (United) pursuant to an agreement with Bell. United performs a form of cost-containment service that has commonly become known as "utilization review." See Blum, An Analysis of Legal Liability in Health Care Utilization Review and Case Management, 26 Hous.L.Rev. 191, 192-93 (1989) ( ). The Summary Plan Description (SPD) explains QCP as follows:
The Quality Care Program (QCP), administered by United HealthCare, Inc., assists you and your covered dependents in securing quality medical care according to the provisions of the Plan while helping reduce risk and expense due to unnecessary hospitalization and surgery. They do this by providing you with information which will permit you (in consultation with your doctor) to evaluate alternatives to surgery and hospitalization when those alternatives are medically appropriate. In addition, QCP will monitor any certified hospital confinement to keep you informed as to whether or not the stay is covered by the Plan.
Two paragraphs below, the SPD contains this statement: When reading this booklet, remember that all decisions regarding your medical care are up to you and your doctor. It goes on to explain that when a beneficiary does not contact United or follow its pre-certification decision, a "QCP Penalty" is applied. The penalty involves reduction of benefits by 20 percent for the remainder of the calendar year or until the annual out-of-pocket limit is reached. Moreover, the annual out-of-pocket limit is increased from $1,000 to $1,250 in covered expenses, not including any applicable deductible. According to the QCP Administrative Manual, the QCP penalty is automatically applied when a participant fails to contact United. However, if a participant complies with QCP by contacting United, but does not follow its decision, the penalty may be waived following an internal appeal if the medical facts show that the treatment chosen was appropriate.
A more complete description of QCP and the services provided by United is contained in a separate booklet. Under the heading "WHAT QCP DOES" the booklet explains:
Whenever your doctor recommends surgery or hospitalization for you or a covered dependent, QCP will provide an independent review of your condition (or your covered dependent's). The purpose of the review is to assess the need for surgery or hospitalization and to determine the appropriate length of stay for a hospitalization, based on nationally accepted medical guidelines. As part of the review process, QCP will discuss with your doctor the appropriateness of the treatments recommended and the availability of alternative types of treatments--or locations for treatment--that are equally effective, involve less risk, and are more cost effective.
The next paragraph is headed "INDEPENDENT, PROFESSIONAL REVIEW" and states:
United Health Care, an independent professional medical review organization, has been engaged to provide services under QCP. United's staff includes doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals knowledgeable about the health care delivery system. Together with your doctor, they work to assure that you and your covered family members receive the most appropriate medical care.
At several points in the booklet, the themes of "independent medical review" and "reduction of unnecessary risk and expense" are repeated. Under a section entitled "THE QUALITY CARE PROGRAM ... AT A GLANCE" the booklet states that QCP "Provides independent, professional review when surgery or hospitalization is recommended--to assist you in making an enlightened decision regarding your treatment." QCP "[p]rovides improved quality of care by eliminating medically unnecessary treatment," but beneficiaries who fail to use it "may be exposed to unnecessary health risks...." Elsewhere, in the course of pointing out that studies show one-third of all surgery may be unnecessary, the booklet explains that programs such as QCP "help reduce unnecessary and inappropriate care and eliminate their associated costs." Thus, "one important service of QCP will help you get a second opinion when your doctor recommends surgery."
The booklet goes on to describe the circumstances under which QCP must be utilized. When a Plan member's doctor recommends admission to the hospital,
[i]ndependent medical professionals will review, with the patient's doctor, the medical findings and the proposed course of treatment, including the medically necessary length of confinement. The Quality Care Program may require additional tests or information (including second opinions), when determined necessary during consultation between QCP professionals and the attending physician.
When United certifies a hospital stay, it monitors the continuing necessity of the stay. It also determines, for certain medical procedures and surgeries, whether a second opinion is necessary, and authorizes, where appropriate, certain alternative forms of care. Beneficiaries are strongly encouraged to use QCP to avoid loss of benefits: " 'fully using' QCP means following the course of treatment that's recommended by QCP's medical professionals."
In accordance with the QCP portion of the plan, Dr. Collins sought pre-certification from United for Mrs. Corcoran's hospital stay. Despite Dr. Collins's recommendation, United determined that hospitalization was not necessary, and instead authorized 10 hours per day of home nursing care. 3 Mrs. Corcoran entered the hospital on October 3, 1989, but, because United had not pre-certified her stay, she returned home on October 12. On October 25, during a period of time when no nurse was on duty, the fetus went into distress and died.
Mrs. Corcoran and her husband, Wayne, filed a wrongful death action in Louisiana state court alleging that their unborn child died as a result of various acts of negligence committed by Blue Cross and United. Both sought damages for the lost love, society and affection of their unborn child. In addition, Mrs. Corcoran sought damages for the aggravation of a pre-existing depressive condition and the loss of consortium caused by such aggravation, and Mr. Corcoran sought damages for loss of consortium. The defendants removed the action to federal court on grounds that it was pre-empted by ERISA 4 and that there was complete diversity among the parties.
Shortly thereafter, the defendants...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rice v. Panchal
...the existence of a plan, and also, because the state-law action was displaced under Secs. 502(a) & Sec. 510); Corcoran v. United HealthCare, Inc., 965 F.2d 1321 (9th Cir.1992) (malpractice claim against administrator of ERISA plan preempted), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 812, 121 ......
-
Salameh v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co.
...decision to create a comprehensive, uniform federal scheme for the regulation of employee benefit plans." Corcoran v. United Health-Care, Inc., 965 F.2d 1321, 1328 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1033, 113 S.Ct. 812, 121 L.Ed.2d 684 (1992). ERISA preemption is designed to protect plan pa......
-
Garrison v. Northeast Georgia Medical Center, Inc.
...benefits contract because that contract provided the benefits to which Jass was entitled." Id. at 1489-90. In Corcoran v. United HealthCare, Inc., 965 F.2d 1321 (5th Cir.1992), the Fifth Circuit considered whether a claim the utilization review organization for its determination that hospit......
-
Huss v. Green Spring Health Services, Inc., CIV.A.98-59 MMS.
...benefits determination even when the decision was considered to constitute medical advice as well. See Corcoran v. United HealthCare, Inc., 965 F.2d 1321, 1331 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1033, 113 S.Ct. 812, 121 L.Ed.2d 684 (1992). In Corcoran, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals hel......
-
A framework for analysis of ERISA preemption in suits against health plans and a call for reform.
...1109 (West 1996). (36) See, e.g., Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134 (1985); Corcoran v. United Health Care, Inc., 965 F.2d 1321 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1033 (1992); Walter v. International Ass'n of Machinists Pension Fund, 949 F.2d 310 (10th Cir. 1991); Si......
-
The circuitous journey to the patients' bill of rights: winners and losers.
...ERISA); Clark v. Humana Kan. City, Inc., 975 F. Supp. 1283, 1287, 1289 (D. Kan. 1997) (following Corcoran v. United Health Care, Inc., 965 F.2d 1321 (5th Cir. 1992) and concluding that utilization review is administrative and not a quality-of-care issue and was therefore preempted); Andrews......
-
Requiring Managed Care to Disclose the Use of Financial Incentives: Shea v. Esensten, 107 F.3d 625 (8th Cir. 1997)
...note 33, at 494. 66. See Kuhl v. Lincoln Nat'l Health Plan, Inc., 999 F.2d 298 (8th Cir. 1993); Corcoran v. United Health Care Inc., 965 F.2d 1321 (5th Cir. 1992)(holding that ERISA preempts actions based on wrongful denial of benefits even though no adequate remedy could be provided). 67. ......
-
Managed Care, Utilization Review, and Financial Risk Shifting: Compensating Patients for Health Care Cost Containment Injuries
...obtaining health care." Capron, supra note 47, at 752. 176. See Capron, supra note 47, at 742. 177. Corcoran v. United Healthcare, Inc., 965 F.2d 1321, 1331 (5th Cir. 178. See supra note 110 and accompanying text. 179. Corcoran, 965 F.2d at 1332. 180. See supra notes 111-112 and accompanyin......