No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
ERISA: State Tort Claim for Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation Survives ERISA Preemption—Shea v. Esensten
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2021
Extract
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that ERISA did not preempt a Minnesota tort claim alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation against primary-care physicians who failed to disclose their financial incentives to minimize specialist referrals. The original action (“Shea I”) was filed in state court after the plaintiff's husband died of heart failure, alleging that his family doctors had assured him that referral to a cardiologist was unnecessary. The plaintiff filed a wrongful death suit against the doctors, their clinic, and her husband's HMO. Her complaint against the HMO alleged that certain financial incentives built into the HMO-physician contract were designed to minimize referrals to specialists. The HMO removed the case to the District of Minnesota, contending that ERISA preempted the plaintiff's wrongful death claim.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2000
References
No. 99-1388, 2000 WL 336674 (8th Cir. Mar. 31, 2000).Google Scholar
29 U.S.C. § 1144 (1999).Google Scholar
See Shea, id. note 1 at *3–6.Google Scholar
107 F.3d 625 (8th Cir. 1997).Google Scholar
See Shea, id. note 1 at *1.Google Scholar
The District Court further decided issues of mootness and statute of limitations with respect to the claims in the amended complaint. On appeal, plaintiff's claim was found not to be moot although it did have a statute of limitations bar with respect its claims against the clinic's owners.Google Scholar
519 U.S. 316Google Scholar
See Shea, , id. note 1 at *3.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
See id. at *4.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
947 F.2d 1341 (8th Cir. 1991).Google Scholar
See Shea, id. note 1 at *6.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar