Spain v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 06 December 1993 |
Docket Number | No. 93-55303,93-55303 |
Citation | 11 F.3d 129 |
Parties | 17 Employee Benefits Cas. 2239 Janelle Susan SPAIN, an individual, and Jenna Margaret Spain, a minor, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Janelle Spain, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Sharon J. Arkin, Shernoff, Bidart & Darras, Claremont, CA, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Bless Stritar Young, Fulbright & Jaworski, Los Angeles, CA, for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before: FLETCHER, and D.W. NELSON, Circuit Judges; WILL *, District Judge.
OVERVIEW
A mother and daughter appeal the district court's dismissal of their wrongful death suit against Aetna Life Insurance Company ("Aetna"), the administrator of their husband's/father's employee benefit plan. They contend the district court erred by deciding that a state common law wrongful death
action is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") Sec. 514(a), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1144(a). We do not agree and affirm the judgment.
This suit is brought by Janelle and Margaret Spain (the "Spains"), Steven Spain's wife and daughter, respectively. Steven Spain was a plan participant and beneficiary in a self-funded employee benefit plan within the meaning of ERISA. See 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1002(1) (1988). His plan was administered by Aetna.
Steven Spain was diagnosed as having testicular cancer. His doctors decided that an autologous bone marrow transplant ("ABMT") was necessary to attempt to save his life. Aetna pre-approved the first two parts of this three-part procedure. Initially, Aetna also authorized the last part of the procedure. However, Aetna later withdrew its authorization on the grounds that Steven Spain's diagnosed condition did not make him eligible for this procedure. Because Spain could not afford the final part of the procedure on his own, he brought suit against his employee benefit plan and its administrator, Aetna, to compel authorization of treatment. Two days after notification of the suit, the plan and Aetna authorized the last part of the procedure.
Appellants contend that "ABMT procedures can be performed successfully only during a very narrow window of time and by the time Aetna acknowledged its error and approved the procedure, Steven's window had closed." Thus, although the procedure was eventually completed, Appellants argue that Steven Spain's death was negligently caused by Aetna's initial denial in authorizing the procedure. At trial, the district court dismissed the case on the grounds that ERISA preempts Appellants' state law claim for wrongful death. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291.
"The interpretation of ERISA, a federal statute, is a question of law subject to de novo review." Long v. Flying Tiger Line, Inc., 994 F.2d 692, 694 (9th Cir.1993). Specifically, "ERISA preemption is a conclusion of law reviewed de novo." Greany v. Western Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 973 F.2d 812, 816 (9th Cir.1992) (quoting Olson v. General Dynamics Corp., 951 F.2d 1123, 1125 (9th Cir.1991) (citations omitted)).
The sole issue on review is whether ERISA preempts the state common law wrongful death action. ERISA's preemption clause is "deliberately expansive," Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 45-46, 107 S.Ct. 1549, 1551-52, 95 L.Ed.2d 39 (1987), and " 'contains one of the broadest preemption clauses ever enacted by Congress.' " Greany, 973 F.2d at 817 (citations omitted). The preemption clause states that the provisions provided by ERISA "shall supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan...." 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1144(a). Interpreting ERISA's preemption clause, the Supreme Court has instructed that "relates to" is to be "given its broad common-sense meaning." Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724, 739, 105 S.Ct. 2380, 2389, 85 L.Ed.2d 728 (1985). Therefore, a state cause of action relates to an ERISA benefit plan if operation of the law impinges on the functioning of an ERISA plan. Id.
Appellants assert that Aetna's improper withdrawal of authorization for Steven Spain's ABMT procedure caused Steven Spain's death. Although Appellants do not seek benefits under the plan, their state common law cause of action seeks damages for the negligent administration of benefit claims. This circuit, following the lead of the Supreme Court in Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, has held that "state common law causes of action arising from the improper processing of a claim are preempted by federal law." Kanne v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 867 F.2d 489, 493 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 906, 109 S.Ct. 3216, 106 L.Ed.2d 566 (1989). Hence, ERISA preempts Appellants' wrongful death action because the state law in its application directly "relates to" the administration and disbursement of ERISA plan benefits. Both the Fifth Circuit and Tenth Circuit, the only Further, a state wrongful death action is not "saved" by the sole exception to ERISA's preemption rule. Although the ERISA preemption clause is broad, Congress created an exception for "any law of any State which regulates insurance, banking, or securities." 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1144(b)(2)(A). Under this exception, a law must not just have an impact on an insurance company, "but must be specifically directed toward that industry." Pilot, 481 U.S. at 50, 107 S.Ct. at 1554. The cause of action for wrongful death at issue in this appeal is a general tort and clearly was not specifically tailored by the state to regulate insurance, banking, or securities.
two circuits that have confronted the issue of whether ERISA preempts a state wrongful death action, have reached the same conclusion. See Settles v. Golden Rule Ins. Co., 927 F.2d 505, 510 (10th Cir.1991) (); Corcoran v. United Healthcare, Inc., 965 F.2d 1321, 1332 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 812, 121 L.Ed.2d 684 (1992) ().
Congress carefully constructed the civil enforcement provisions...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hendrix v. United Healthcare Ins. Co. of the River Valley
... ... 3(1), 29 U.S.C. 1002(1)." Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux , 481 U.S. 41, 44, 107 S.Ct. 1549, 95 L.Ed.2d 39 (1987). 327 So.3d 194 ERISA's ... 1132, are completely preempted, and removal jurisdiction exists."). In Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila , 542 U.S. 200, 124 S.Ct. 2488, 159 L.Ed.2d 312 (2004), the United States ... that the treatment was "investigational and/or experimental" was preempted under 514(a)); Spain v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. , 11 F.3d 129 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that state-law cause of action ... ...
-
Garrison v. Northeast Georgia Medical Center, Inc.
... ... group of claims is necessarily federal in character." Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63-64, 107 S.Ct. 1542, 95 L.Ed.2d 55 ... against an HMO for denying precertification for heart surgery); Spain v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 11 F.3d 129 (9th Cir.1993) (holding that ERISA ... ...
-
Huss v. Green Spring Health Services, Inc., CIV.A.98-59 MMS.
... ... Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 45, 107 S.Ct. 1549, 95 L.Ed.2d 39 ... denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 66, 136 L.Ed.2d 27 (1996); Spain v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 11 F.3d 129, 131-132 (9th Cir.1993) (holding ... ...
-
Andrews-Clarke v. Travelers Inc. Co.
... ... , MA, Scott Kirschbaum, Adorno & Zeder, Miami, FL, for Travelers Ins. Co., MetraHealth Ins. Co. and United Health Care Ins. Co ... His wife saved his life, breaking through the garage door to find him slumped on the floor. She ... [the] administration of benefits"); Spain v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 11 F.3d 129, 131 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...705 (2000), §3:74 Soward v. Jacksonville Jaguars, 2014 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 140 (NPD-2014), §2:261 Spain v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 11 F3d 129 (9th Cir 1993), §2:53 Spalding v. IAC, 17 CWCR 130 (BPD-1989), §4:84 Spalenka v. WCAB, 42 CCC 929 (W/D-1977), §§10:156, 10:166 Sparagna, Sparagna......
-
Jurisdiction
...withholding of authorization to conduct a medical procedure allegedly resulting in decedent’s death. [ Spain v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. , 11 F3d 129 (9th Cir 1993).] Not only are civil suits affected by the ERISA preemption but also a state’s statutory provisions may be preempted. Thus, a state......
-
A framework for analysis of ERISA preemption in suits against health plans and a call for reform.
...Inc., 463 U.S. 85 (1983), and District of Columbia v. Greater Wash. Bd of Trade, 506 U.S. 125 (1992). (42) 481 U.S. 41, 47-48 (1987). (43) 11 F.3d 129 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1052 (44) Accord Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134 (1985). (45) See supra Sectio......
-
The circuitous journey to the patients' bill of rights: winners and losers.
...bad faith, wrongful death, and medical malpractice arising from defendants' refusal to authorize treatment); Spain v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 11 F.3d 129, 131-32 (9th Cir. 1993) (declaring the wrongful death claim based on the delay in authorizing cancer treatment to be expressly preempted bec......