ERISA Preemption of Medical Malpractice Claims in Managed Care: Asserting a New Statutory Interpretation

By Bartholomew, Karla S. | Vanderbilt Law Review, May 1999 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

ERISA Preemption of Medical Malpractice Claims in Managed Care: Asserting a New Statutory Interpretation


Bartholomew, Karla S., Vanderbilt Law Review


I. INTRODUCTION

If Congress wants the American citizens to have access to adequate health care, then Congress must accept its responsibility to define the scope of ERISA preemption and to enact legislation that will ensure every patient has access to that care.1

Congress enacted the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA")2 to protect employee interests3 and ensure a uniform body of law for pension and benefit plans.4 The statute's expansive preemption clause5 and preclusion of extra-contractual damages6 have since been used to immunize Managed Care Organizations ("MCOs")7 from liability for patient8 injuries resulting from medical malpractice. Because plaintiffs with preempted claims may receive only the remedies provided for under ERISA-the right or benefit due under the plan9-many injured patients have been left with no meaningful remedy.10

"[N]ot a model of legislative drafting,"11 the statute's broad preemption clause provides that state law claims that "relate to" an ERISA plan are preempted.12 The ambiguous phrase "relate to" has been the primary focus of the Supreme Court's attempts to determine the reach of the preemption clause.13 Relying primarily on a textual interpretation of the statute, the Court has held that, while ERISA does not preempt "run-of-the-mill state-law claims,"14 those plans that have a "connection with or reference to"15 an ERISA plan, without being a "tenuous, remote, or peripheral connection,"16 are preempted. The Supreme Court's tortured attempts to give effect to the statutory language have led to doctrinal confusion and "chaos" in the lower courts.17 Little judicial guidance, therefore, currently exists for interpreting ERISA's poorly constructed preemption clause.

ERISA is implicated in medical malpractice claims through its regulation of employee welfare plans.18 An "employee welfare benefit plan" under ERISA is a "plan, fund, or program" that an employer establishes or maintains to provide medical, surgical, or hospital care or benefits to participants through the purchase of insurance.19 Employer-provided health insurance, therefore, has been interpreted as an employee benefit within the scope of ERISA. If a state cause of action involving health care provided through an ERISA plan, such as a medical malpractice claim, is deemed to "relate to" the employee benefit plan, the cause of action is preempted by ERISA under section 514(a).20

Although most courts agree that direct liability actions against MCOs21 are limited to remedies provided by ERISA, vicarious liability claims against MCOs22 have divided federal courts,23 leading to calls for legislative action.24 While the Supreme Court has not yet spoken directly to the case of a medical malpractice claim against an MCO, lower courts are increasingly adopting the reasoning put forth by the Third Circuit in Dukes v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc?25 The Dukes court held that ERISA preempts claims interpreted as a denial of benefits, but not those claims challenging the quality of care of benefits received.26 Appealingly simple, this distinction may ultimately prove untenable; often a reasonable argument can be made for an action based on either a denial of benefit or substandard medical care.

The current jurisprudence of ERISA preemption contravenes both of the congressional goals set forth for ERISA. First, the interests of employees are not being protected. ERISA's broad preemption clause has left many injured patients without meaningful remedy. Second, the body of law for benefit plans is not uniform. There are differences in the treatment of direct and vicarious liability claims, employer-provided health care and non-employer-provided health care, self-insured plans and commercial insurance, and hospitals and MCOs.27 Despite calls for legislative action, Congress has been unsuccessful in passing legislation amending ERISA to better protect health care plan members.28

Courts have the power to interpret the statute to comply with ERISA's goals of employee protection and uniformity.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

ERISA Preemption of Medical Malpractice Claims in Managed Care: Asserting a New Statutory Interpretation
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?