Rural Credit Subscribers' Ass'n v. Hanger

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that United’s anti-assignment provisions prevented healthcare providers from pursuing a Section 502(a)(1)(B) action
• finding “decision[s] that give effect to the plain language of anti-assignment provisions” “more persuasive” than Protocare
• finding “more persuasive,” after analyzing Biomed and Neuroaxis Neurosurgical Assocs., P.C., the other “decisions that give effect to the plain language of anti-assignment provisions”
• finding no waiver when defendant had made payments to plaintiff, subsequently communicated with plaintiff regarding such claims, to include requesting documentation on paid claims
• looking to plan terms to determine whether anti-assignment provisions invalidated provider’s assignments and whether provider had viable equitable defenses to anti-assignment provisions
• “The validity of assignments for ERISA purposes is a question of federal common law.” (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).