Bowen v. Laird.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that because determining in-network payments simply requires checking an industry-standard or fee schedule, it is only a cursory examination and does not trigger express preemption
• holding that ERISA’s “broad express preemption provision” in § 514(a
• contemplating that a “benefit 24 conferred” in an ERISA matter to be “the discharge of the obligation the insurer owes to 25 the insured”
• holding unjust enrichment claim expressly preempted because the claim requires a court to find an ERISA plan exists to show that Aetna “received a benefit”
• noting that “[a]bsent the assignment of benefits, a healthcare provider may not pursue its own section 502(a) cause of action ….”
• holding breach of contract claims are not preempted by ERISA when the complaint alleged a separate agreement between plaintiff and defendant that defined the benefits owed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).