Health Cost Controls v. Skinner, 94 C 307.
Decision Date | 20 January 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 94 C 307.,94 C 307. |
Citation | 845 F. Supp. 567 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Parties | HEALTH COST CONTROLS, Plaintiff, v. Richard L. SKINNER, et al., Defendants. |
James John Merriman, for plaintiff.
Health Cost Controls ("HCC") has filed this multi-count multi-defendant lawsuit, seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction under a provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") — its Section 1132(a)(3).1 Based on its initial review of the Complaint,2 this Court sua sponte dismisses not only the Complaint but this entire action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
HCC attempts to bring itself within ERISA's right-to-sue provisions by identifying itself as a "fiduciary" under the definition of that term set out in Section 1002(21)(A) (Complaint ¶ 10). By way of explanation, Complaint ¶ 3 alleges that HMO Illinois, Inc. ("HMO Illinois") has been the provider of "managed care services" for some participants under an employee welfare benefit plan established by Mobil Oil Corporation ("Mobil") — in this instance such services were provided for a family member of a Mobil employee. Complaint ¶ 8 then alleges that HCC has been designated by HMO Illinois "to prosecute all of its rights to subrogation and reimbursement under the Mobil Plan."3
On that scenario HCC's self-description does not at all appear to qualify it as an ERISA "fiduciary." And if that fundamental doubt were to be resolved against HCC (as would appear likely), that alone would be enough to dispatch this lawsuit. But because HCC's claimed "fiduciary" status is used as the springboard for its asserted action under Section 1132(a)(3), and because HCC's ability to bring this lawsuit under that provision is so clearly nonexistent, this opinion will pass for the moment the question as to the propriety of HCC's wrapping itself in the "fiduciary" mantle.
Instead this Court turns directly to Section 1132(a)(3), which reads this way:
Two things should be noted about that provision:
In this instance the definitive teaching as to the reading of ERISA's remedial provisions under such circumstances comes from no less than the Supreme Court in Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134, 146, 147, 105 S.Ct. 3085, 3092, 3093, 87 L.Ed.2d 96 (1985) (emphasis in original, citations omitted):
Although HCC sets out seven counts launched against four targets, every one of those seven claims is grounded on contractual reimbursement provisions, and every one of them concludes by asking for $67,815.58 in compensatory damages. No matter what highway markers HCC has set up, then, its ultimate intended destination is always the same: a claim for money damages. It takes no advanced course in equity jurisprudence to recognize that such a suit for money damages is really the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Health Cost Controls v. Skinner
...Rick A. Mason, their attorney, and General Casualty. 2 The district court dismissed the action sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction 845 F.Supp. 567. HCC The narrow question presented for our review is whether HCC properly invoked the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court. This Co......
-
HEDBERG BY BOURSAW v. Zaldivar, 94 C 1117.
...it gets. Just a month ago this Court was compelled to reject HCC's attempt to file a case in this District Court (Health Cost Controls v. Skinner, 845 F.Supp. 567 (1994)) on the ground that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking — that is, HCC was found to have no standing as a "fiduciary"......
- US v. Ghanayem, 93 CR 510-1.