Montefiore Medical Center v. Teamsters Local 272

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 “exception to 9 the [ordinary] ERISA standing requirements” for “healthcare 10 providers to whom a beneficiary has assigned his claim in exchange 11 for health care” is “narrow” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• explaining that all parts of the Davila test must be satisfied to pre-empt a claim
• stating that, under Davila, “claims are completely preempted by ERISA if they are brought (i
• concluding in complete preemption context that “phone conversations” about plan administration “did not create a sufficiently independent duty”
• stating that “federal subject matter jurisdiction typically exists only when the plaintiffs well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal law, and not simply when federal preemption might be invoked as a defense to liability.”
• finding that plaintiff had a colorable claim for benefits pursuant to ERISA section 502(a)(1)(B) because the relevant claims “implicated] coverage determinations under the relevant terms of the Plan”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).