Hayden v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama

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 1989 insurance statute governing payments to certified registered nurse anesthetists did not apply to BCBS because § 10-4-115 was not amended to so state
• holding that a 1989 insurance statute governing payments to certified registered nurse anesthetists did not apply to BCBS because § 10-4-115 was not amended to so state
• holding analytically analogous statute failed the common-sense view where although the statute “may have a substantial effect on the insurance industry, the law affects other healthcare plans and agreements even though they are not part of an insurance agreement”
• “[although [the statute at issue there] may have a substantial effect on the insurance industry, the law affects other health care plans and agreements even though they are not a part of an insurance contract”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).