Singh v. Prudential Health Care Plan, 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 subrogation prohibition of the Maryland HMO Act is a state-law regulation of insurance
• holding that “completely preempted claims” under the LMRA are “conver[ted] into federal claims” that “must .. . be decided by the district court”
• ruling that, when a claim is completely preempted, “the district court must consider only remedies authorized by [the preempting federal statute] and must reject all others.”
• holding a health maintenance organization (HMO) member’s claims that sought the return of plan benefits fell within the scope of ERISA civil enforcement provision and were completely preempted
• “[W]hen the validity, interpretation or applicability of a plan term governs the participant’s entitlement to a benefit or its amount, the claim for such a benefit falls within the scope of § 502(a).”
• “[The plan member’s] claim to recover the portion of her benefit that was diminished by her payment to Prudential under the unlawful subrogation term of the plan is no less a claim for recovery of a plan benefit under § 502(a

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).