We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
EXHAUSTION OF PLAN APPEALS PROCEDURES.
- Authors
Hesse, Katherine A.; MacKenzie Ehrens, Doris R.
- Abstract
The article presents information on the Ravencraft v. UNUM Life Insurance Co. of America court case, which is about employee health benefits. A pharmacist, Richard Ravencraft, was insured for disability benefits under an employer-sponsored plan through UNUM Life Insurance Co. of America. Ravencraft filed a claim for long-term disability benefits because of a knee replacement and the potential for his needing the same operation on the other knee. UNUM claimed the plan was governed by Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and removed the case to federal court. The district court ruled in UNUM's favor because Ravencraft failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The court of appeals pointed out that even though ERISA does not explicitly require it, the law in the most circuits requires that a participant exhaust his or her administrative remedies before filing suit. Ravencraft contended that he was not required to do so under the circumstances of his case on the grounds that pursuing the remedies would have been futile, but the court disagreed.
- Subjects
UNITED States; ACTIONS &; defenses (Law); UNUM Life Insurance Co. of America; RAVENCRAFT, Richard; EMPLOYER-sponsored health insurance; HEALTH insurance; LEGAL judgments
- Publication
Benefits Quarterly, 2001, Vol 17, Issue 2, p70
- ISSN
8756-1263
- Publication type
Article