Davis v. Gulleckson

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that, based on the plain language of an anti- assignment provision in an ERISA-governed plan, plaintiff’s acceptance of an assignment was “ineffective—a legal nullity”
• holding that assignment to out-of-network provider was “a legal nullity” in light of anti-assignment provision in plan
• holding that assignment to out-of-network provider was “a legal nullity” in light of anti-assignment provision in plan
• holding that a promissory estoppel claim was not completely preempted under Section 502 because it was “simply a suit between a third-party provider and an insurer based on the insurer’s independent promise”
• holding that out-of-network provider’s promissory estoppel claim was not completely preempted by ERISA because the provider was “suing in his own right pursuant to an independent obligation . . . based on the insurer’s independent promise”
• noting that Aetna “ha[d] not argued on appeal that the anti-assignment provision d[id] not apply”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).