There is an excellent article in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly this week by Eric Berkman on a new District Court decision by Judge Woodlock in Massachusetts concerning mental health benefits and the nature of the review provided by an insurer. The decision, K.D. v. Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, found that the insurer had an insufficient basis
ERISA
A New and Thoughtful Decision Awarding Fees Under ERISA to a Prevailing Party
By Stephen Rosenberg on
Posted in Attorney Fee Awards
Attorney fee awards under ERISA loom larger in the imagination of lawyers and, to the extent they note it at all, the public than they do in the real world. It’s likely due to the outsize coverage that the occasional very large fee award, usually entered as part of a class action settlement, receives in…
Is It a Breach of Fiduciary Duty to Include Target Date Funds In 401(k) Plans?
By Stephen Rosenberg on
Not long after I first started writing this blog, the Seventh Circuit began trying to preemptively squelch excessive fee litigation by, at heart, insisting that the invisible hand of the market would never have allowed the type of overcharging of fees claimed by the plaintiffs in those cases and that plan fiduciaries therefore could not…
How Should Courts Analyze Arbitration Clauses in ERISA Plans?
By Stephen Rosenberg on
Posted in Arbitration, Benefit Litigation
Here’s an excellent client alert, out of Holland and Knight, on the question of mandatory arbitration provisions in ERISA benefit plans. The alert discusses a recent federal district court decision out of Arizona requiring the participant in an ESOP to arbitrate her claim, rather than bring a putative class action case in federal court,…
Attorney Fee Awards in Chapter 93A and ERISA Litigation
Twenty years or so ago, I represented an insurer in a $20 million insurance bad faith and Chapter 93A claim in which one of the key issues was whether the insurer was right to rely on the advice of a terrific lawyer, Tom Burns (the Burns in the Boston firm Burns and Levinson), who had…
Retaliation, Section 510 and the Timing of Terminations
By Stephen Rosenberg on
Section 510 of ERISA makes it illegal to take any job action for the purpose of interfering with an employment benefit that would otherwise have been due to the employee. The classic formulation of such a claim is terminating an employee right before a pension would have vested, simply to avoid owing the benefit; some…
A Perfect Example of the Evolution in Equitable Relief: Recovering Group Life Benefits After Enrollment Errors By The Life Insurer
By Stephen Rosenberg on
I have returned to blogging after stepping away for awhile from regular posting for a number of reasons ; foremost among them, however, is wanting to talk regularly about the continuing evolution in this area of the law toward a more even playing field for both employees and employers, and away from the many structural…