Federal Case

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a dispute regarding \provider agreements\ was not preempted because it was based on \state law claims arising out of separate agreements for the provision of goods and services\
• holding that “the Providers’ claims, which arise from the terms of their provider agreements ... are not claims for benefits under the terms of ERISA plans”
• holding that because a health care provider’s claim that Blue Cross of California improperly amended its schedule of fees was governed by a provider agreement rather than an employee benefit plan, that claim was properly brought in state court and not preempted by ERISA
• finding state law not preempted 19 because it did “not create an alternative enforcement mechanism for securing benefits 20 under the terms of ERISA-covered plans”
• finding no ERISA preemption where provider alleges that insurer breached provider agreement by improperly amending fee schedules, since claims “arise from the terms of their provider agreements and could not be asserted by their patients-assignors”
• claims not preempted where they “concern only promises that Blue Cross made as a health care plan provider to its participating physicians”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).