Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Pegram v. Herdrich
120 S. Ct. 2143 (U.S June 12, 2000) ; Clearinghouse Number: 53053
Description
Supreme Court Holds That Health Maintenance Organization Treatment Decisions Are Not Fiduciary Acts Under Employee Retirement Income Security Act
Abstract
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that mixed eligibility and
treatment decisions made by a health maintenance organization
(HMO), acting through its physician employees, were not fiduciary
acts within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA). Respondent patient had medical coverage from
petitioner, a for-profit HMO owned by physicians providing prepaid
medical services to participants whose employers contracted with it
for coverage. After petitioner required patient to wait eight days
for an ultrasound of her inflamed abdomen, patient’s appendix
ruptured. Patient sued HMO and the doctor in state court for
medical malpractice and fraud. HMO removed the case to federal
court on ERISA preemption grounds. Patient alleged that providing
medical services under terms that rewarded physician owners for
limiting medical care entailed an anticipatory breach of an ERISA
duty because these terms created an incentive to make decisions in
the physicians’ self-interest rather than in the exclusive
interest of plan participants. The district court granted summary
judgment to HMO on one fraud count and dismissed the other. The
Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of her ERISA claim; it held
that HMO acted as a fiduciary when its physicians made the
challenged decisions. Disagreeing, the Supreme Court—after
analyzing the structure of HMOs and fiduciary responsibilities
under ERISA—concluded that Congress did not intend HMOs to be
treated as fiduciaries when making mixed eligibility and treatment
decisions acting through their physicians. Moreover, a contrary
conclusion would, in effect, eliminate the for-profit HMO, the
formation of which Congress promoted for more than 27 years. The
federal judiciary would contravene congressional policy if it
considered ERISA fiduciary claims attacking HMOs solely based on
their structure, without claims of concrete harm.
