Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T22:22:09.692Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Second Circuit Permits State Malpractice Suit against HMO

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Anna Lumelsky
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On February 11, 2003, the Second Circuit ruled in Cicio v. Vytra Healthcare that patients may in some cases sue health maintenance organizations (HMOs) for medical malpractice under state law. The decision is particularly notable for opening the door to state tort claims in an area that had heen considered preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

ERISA is a federal statute that regulates employee benefit plans, establishing a complex set of rules and minimum standards for most health and pension plans in private industry. ERISA requires that participants receive certain information about their benefits plans, and imposes fiduciary responsibilities on individuals with discretionary control over plan assets. These individuals have certain specific duties, and are required to work “solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries and for the exclusive purpose of: (i) providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries; and (ii) defraying reasonable expenses of administering the plan.”

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , Winter 2003 , pp. 734 - 736
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cicio v. Vytra Healthcare, 321 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2003).Google Scholar
29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq (1974). See Crowley, L., “Health Law: Door Opens for Malpractice Claims to Outlast Preemption Disputes,” New York Law Journal, March 6, 2003, at 3.Google Scholar
See 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A)(i)–(iii).Google Scholar
29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(A)(i) – (ii).Google Scholar
See U.S. Department of Labor, Health Plans & Benefit Employee Retirement Income Security Act — ERISA, at <http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/health-plans/erisa.htm> (last visited May 1, 2003).+(last+visited+May+1,+2003).>Google Scholar
See Mertens v. Hewitt Assocs., 508 U.S. 248 (1993); Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134 (1985); Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204 (2002).Google Scholar
See Pear, R., “A Court Expands the Rights of Patients to Sue H.M.O.’s,” New York Times, February 18, 2003, at A14; Langbein, J., “What ERISA Means By Equitable: The Supreme Court’s Trail of Error in Russell, Mertens, and Great West,” 1–95, at 1–2, at <www.ssrn.com> (last visited April 20, 2003). See also Cicio, 321 F.3d at 107. (Calabresi, J., dissenting).+(last+visited+April+20,+2003).+See+also+Cicio,+321+F.3d+at+107.+(Calabresi,+J.,+dissenting).>Google Scholar
See, e.g., Langbein, , supra note 7; Borzi, P., “Pegram v. Herdrich: A Victory for HMOs or the Beginning of the End for ERISA Preemption?” Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law & Ethics, 1 (2001): 161–66; Befort, S. Kopka, C., “The Sounds of Silence: The Libertarian Ethos of ERISA Preemption,” Florida Law Review, 52 (2000): 1–40.Google Scholar
29 U.S.C. § 1144.Google Scholar
See Langbein, , supra note 7, at 25–26; New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645 (1995).Google Scholar
Travelers, 514 U.S. at 654. See also Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran, 536 U.S. 355, 365 (2002); California Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Const., N.A., Inc., 519 U.S. 316, 335–36 (1997) (Scalia, J., concurring).Google Scholar
Cicio, 321 F.3d at 86–87.Google Scholar
Id. at 87.Google Scholar
Id. at 87–88. See also Pear, , supra note 7.Google Scholar
Id. at 88.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. at 88–89.Google Scholar
Cicio v. Vytra Healthcare, 208 F.Supp.2d 288 (E.D.N.Y. Sep 28, 2001); Cicio, 321 F.3d at 86.Google Scholar
Cicio, 321 F.3d at 100. See, e.g., Jass v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc., 88 F.3d 1482 (7th Cir.1996); Tolton v. American Biodyne, Inc., 48 F.3d 937 (6th Cir. 1995); Corcoran v. United Healthcare, Inc., 965 F.2d 1321 (5th Cir. 1992).Google Scholar
See sources cited at note 11, supra; Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211 (2000).Google Scholar
Pegram, 530 U.S. at 211. Since, as the Supreme Court noted, most HMOs involve some type of physician cost-minimization incentive scheme, the circuit court ruling posed a significant threat to the HMO system. See id. at 221.Google Scholar
Id. at 227–28.Google Scholar
Id. at 229.Google Scholar
It reached this conclusion largely through a comparison of ERISA fiduciary duty with common law fiduciary duty, under which “fiduciary duties characteristically attach to decisions about managing assets and distributing property to beneficiaries,” which the Court found to be quite different from the mixed decisions relevant to the facts of Pegram. Id. at 231.Google Scholar
Pegram, 530 U.S. at 236–237.Google Scholar
Cicio, 321 F.3d at 102. Since the case was before the Court on a motion to dismiss, it assumed the facts as alleged in deciding that the decision was “mixed,” and remanded the case to district court for a determination of whether this was in fact accurate.Google Scholar
Cicio, 321 F.3d at 99–100, 102.Google Scholar
Cicio, 321 F.3d at 103.Google Scholar
The Cicio court dismissed the plaintiffs negligence claims based on timeliness and misrepresentation because, in contrast to medical malpractice, Congress had “swept away all state regulation” in those areas. Id. at 99.Google Scholar
Id. at 106–110 (Calabresi, J., dissenting in part).Google Scholar
Id. at 106–108. (Calabresi, J., dissenting in part).Google Scholar
Id. (Calabresi, J., dissenting in part).Google Scholar
Id. (Calabresi, J., dissenting in part).Google Scholar
Id. at 108, n.2 (Calabresi, J., dissenting in part) (quoting Plumbing Indus. Bd. Local Union No. 1 v. E.W. Howell Co., 126 F.3d 61, 67 (2d Cir. 1997)).Google Scholar
Id. at 107 (Calabresi, J., dissenting in part).Google Scholar
Id. at 106 (Calabresi, J., dissenting in part).Google Scholar
Id. at 107 (Calabresi, J., dissenting in part).Google Scholar
See Pear, , supra note 7.Google Scholar
See Crowley, , supra note 2.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Moore, T. Gaier, M., “Medical Malpractice; Recent Second Circuit Decision on HMO Liability,” New York Law Journal, March 10, 2003 at 3; Rep. Norwood, C., Congress Should Pass Patient Protections, March 5, 2003, at <http://www.hillnews.com/news/030503/ssh_norwood.aspx> (last visited April 29, 2003).+(last+visited+April+29,+2003).>Google Scholar
See Hechler, D., “The Wrestling Match with ERISA Goes On; Pre-emption Still an Abyss after Ruling,” National Law Journal, February 24, 2003 at A1.Google Scholar
See Hechler, , supra note 51.Google Scholar
Cicio, 321 F.3d at 106. (Calabresi, J., dissenting).Google Scholar