Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Swearingen

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff stated a claim for relief under the Parity Act based on a plan's residential treatment services exclusion, because there was no corresponding limitation on treatment of medical conditions
• refusing to construe the statute as applying only to 23 quantitative limitations through doctrine of ejusdem generis, explaining that “[t]he practical effect 24 of the RTC exclusion is that Jane Doe receives fewer hours (or days
• rejecting Empire's due process defense because \[i]t would be a stretch to conclude from the Departments' request for comments that it was authorizing issuers to enforce treatment-setting limitations. The[ ] [agencies] simply were not prepared to issue guidance at that time.\
• \The Parity Act is 'self-implementing' and it applied at all times relevant to this case.\ (citations omitted)
• \There was a foreseeable risk ... that a court might construe the statute to impose parity with respect to limitations on treatment settings.\
• a plan’s exclusion of benefits that applies 5 only to mental health conditions violates the requirement that it “must not impose treatment 6 limitations on mental-health benefits that are not imposed on medical/surgical benefits”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).