Hotz v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the ERISA private right of action creates an exclusive federal cause of action where the state law claims challenge “the process used to assess a participant’s claim for a benefit payment under the plan” (quoting Danca, 185 F.3d at 6)
• holding that the ERISA private right of action creates an exclusive federal cause of action where the state law claims challenge \the process used to assess a participant's claim for a benefit payment under the plan\ (quoting Danca , 185 F.3d at 6 )
• finding multiple damages and attorney fees state law remedy preempted because similar to punitive damages disallowed in Pilot Life
• affirming trial court’s finding that Chapter 93A claim was preempted where plaintiff challenged insurance company’s decision to wait three months to approve payment for certain medical procedures
• finding removal appropriate because, as in Pilot Life,9 Hotz’s claim “against the insurer alleging undue delay in processing her physician’s referral” challenged “‘the process used to assess a participant’s claim for a benefit payment under the plan’”
• 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a) “has been applied widely to bar state claims seeking damages for alleged breach of obligations pertaining to an ERISA plan”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).