Gerald T. Kolasinski v. Cigna Healthplan of Ct, Inc., 163 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Gerald T. Kolasinski v. Cigna Healthplan of Ct, Inc., 163 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …medical, surgical, or hospital care, ✓
12 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Whitley v. Building Service 32BJ Health Fund (nyed, 2021-03-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Whitley v. Building Service 32BJ Health Fund
E.D.N.Y · 2021 · confidence medium
Second, the state-law claims that Plaintiff wishes to add are completely preempted by ERISA because they merely seek “to rectify a wrongful denial of benefits promised under ERISA- regulated plans, and do not attempt to remedy any violation of a legal duty independent of ERISA.” Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 214 (2004); see also Paneccasio v. Unisource Worldwide, Inc., 532 F.3d 101, 114 (2d Cir. 2008) (holding that ERISA preempted plaintiff’s state common law claims, including breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing); Kolasinski v. Cigna …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Buckley v. Slocum Dickson Medical Group, PLLC
2d Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
Where a beneficiary of an employee benefit plan covered by ERISA seeks benefits under that plan, “ERISA preempts any state law claims that the plaintiff may have because the state law claims directly ‘relate to’ the plan, and Congress intended for ERISA to super-cede all state laws that relate to employee benefit plans.” Kolasinski v. Cigna Healthplan of CT, Inc., 163 F.3d 148, 149 (2d Cir.1998) (per curiam) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (a)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Zarringhalam v. United Food & Commercial Workers International Union Local 1500 Welfare Fund
E.D.N.Y · 2012 · confidence medium
Hosp., 173 F.3d 845 , 845 (2d Cir.1999) (holding ERISA preempted plaintiffs state law claims, including breach of contract); Kolasinski v. Cigna Healthplan of CT, Inc., 163 F.3d 148, 149 (2d Cir.1998) (per curiam) (same); Kennedy v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 989 F.2d 588, 591 (2d Cir.1993) (same).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fellows v. CitiMortgage, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 2010 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Wolens, 513 U.S. at 228 , 115 S.Ct. 817 (holding that the ADA preempts claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act); Paneccasio, 532 F.3d at 114 (holding that ERISA preempts a claim under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act); Kolasinski v. Cigna Healthplan of CT, Inc., 163 F.3d 148, 149 (2d Cir.1998) (per curiam) (same); In re Jet-Blue Airways Corp. Privacy Litig., 379 F.Supp.2d 299, 315 (E.D.N.Y.2005) (“Jet-Blue ”) (holding that privacy-related claim brought under the New York DTPA “fits squarely” within the range of state law action…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Paneccasio v. Unisource Worldwide, Inc.
2d Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
Commc’n Int’l Union, 173 F.3d 94 , 101 (2d Cir.1999) (applying preemption to contract claim that “challenges the [union’s] effort to modify [a medical benefits] plan”); Kolasinski v. Cigna Healthplan of CT, Inc., 163 F.3d 148, 149 (2d Cir.1998) (per curiam) (applying preemption to breach of contract and unfair trade practices claims arising out of failure to pay medical benefits); Smith v. Dunham-Bush, Inc., 959 F.2d 6, 10 (2d Cir.1992) (applying preemption to breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation claims because “the oral representation underlying this suit deals expre…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Kok v. First Unum Life Insurance
S.D.N.Y. · 2001 · confidence medium
See Devlin, 173 F.3d at 101; Kolasinski v. Cigna Healthplan of Conn., Inc., 163 F.3d 148,149 (2d Cir.1998).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Saks v. Franklin Covey Co.
S.D.N.Y. · 2000 · confidence medium
See Devlin v. Transportation Comm. Int’l Union, 173 F.3d 94 , 101 (2d Cir.1999); Kolasinski v. Cigna Healthplan of CT, Inc., 163 F.3d 148, 149 (2d Cir.1998).
discussed Cited "see" Cicio v. Vytra Healthcare
E.D.N.Y · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Kolasinski v. Cigna Healthplan of CT.., Inc., 163 F.3d 148, 149 (2d Cir.1998) (ERISA § 514(a) preempts common law breach of contract and unfair trade practices claims brought by a plaintiff who was seeking compensation from his insurance provider who had agreed to provide coverage for “medically necessary services”); Saks v. Franklin Covey, Co., 117 F.Supp.2d 318, 330 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (“[I]t has long been held that a plaintiff has no claim for breach of contract against a plan administrator for failing to award benefits, because such claims are squarely preempted by ERISA.”) Based o…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Marcella v. Capital District Physicians Health Plan, Inc.
N.D.N.Y. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Kolasinski v. Cigna Healthplan of CT, Inc., 163 F.3d 148, 149 (2d Cir.1998) (holding that state law claims against health plan provider based on allegation that provider failed to compensate employee for medical treatment were preempted where health plan was part of employee benefit plan).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gerald T. KOLASINSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CIGNA HEALTHPLAN OF CT, INC., Defendant-Appellee
98-7333.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Dec 23, 1998.
163 F.3d 148
1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 31779
1998 WL 893145
William R. Moller, Moller, DiPentima, Peck and O’Brien, L.L.C. (Michael Ruben Peck, on the brief), Hartford, CT, for Plaintiff-Appellant., Jean E. Tomasco, Robinson & Cole, LLP (Theodore J. Tueci, Linda L. Morkan, on the brief), Hartford, CT, for Defendant-Appellee.
Meskill, Calabresi, Pollack.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published
Pinpoint authority: bottom 53%
PER CURIAM:

The estate of Gerald T. Kolasinski appeals from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Janet Bond Arterton, Judge), affirming Magistrate Judge William I. Garfinkel’s grant of defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff originally filed this complaint in Connecticut state court seeking damages from Cigna Healthplan of Connecticut (“Cig-na”), alleging a number of state law claims, including breach of contract and unfair trade practices, arising out of the failure of Cigna to compensate Kolasinski for medical treat[*149] ment that he received. Cigna was the health plan provider to the plaintiff, through his employer, United Technologies Corporation. Under the plan, Cigna agreed that it would cover the plaintiffs medically necessary services.

After Cigna removed the action to federal court, the magistrate judge granted the defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint, finding that the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) preempted all the state law claims. See Magistrate’s Recommended Ruling, Estate of Gerald T. Kolasinski v. Cigna Healthplan of CT, Inc., No. 97 Civ. 129 (D.Ct. Feb. 5, 1998). The district court affirmed the magistrate’s ruling. See Estate of Gerald T. Kolasinski v. Cigna Healthplan of CT, Inc., No. 97 Civ. 129 (D.Ct. Mar. 5, 1998).

It is conceded that the health plan of which Kolasinski was a part was an “employee benefit plan” covered by ERISA. [1] It is also clear, as the Magistrate below found, that ERISA preempts any state law claims that the plaintiff may have because the state law claims directly “relate to” the plan, and Congress intended for ERISA to supercede all state laws that relate to employee benefit plans. See 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a) (1994) (establishing that the provisions of ERISA “shall supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan described in ... this title”); see also Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 45-46, 107 S.Ct. 1549, 95 L.Ed.2d 39 (1987) (“[T]he express pre-emption provisions of ERISA are deliberately expansive.”); Romney v. Lin, 94 F.3d 74, 80-81 (2d Cir.1996), reh’g denied, 105 F.3d 806 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 263, 139 L.Ed.2d 189 (1997). Thus, dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint was appropriate for substantially the reasons stated in the magistrate’s ruling. See Magistrate’s Recommended Ruling, No. 97 Civ. 129 (D.Ct. Feb. 5,1998).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed,

1

. See 29 U.S.C. § 1002(1)(A) (1994) (defining "employee welfare benefit plan” to include "any • plan ... established or maintained by an employer. . for the purpose of providing for its participants or their beneficiaries ... medical, surgical, or hospital care or benefits in the event of sickness, accident, disability, death or unemployment”).