Bruce F. Botsford v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Montana, Inc. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass'n, 319 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
Bruce F. Botsford v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Montana, Inc. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass'n, 319 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see, e.g." López-Muñoz v. Triple-S Salud, Inc.
1st Cir. · 2014 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Botsford v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 314 F.3d 390, 399 (9th Cir.2002), amended by 319 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir.2003).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Illinois v. Cruz
7th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Botsford v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mont., Inc., 314 F.3d 390, 397-99 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that the district, court had jurisdiction over enrollee’s claim against carrier because FEHBA preempted state law claim), amended by 319 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir.2003); McCoy v. Unicare Life & Health Ins.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Blue Cross And Blue Shield Of Illinois v. Julia Cruz
7th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Botsford v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mont., Inc., 314 F.3d 390, 397-99 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that the district court had jurisdiction over enrollee's claim against carrier because FEHBA preempted state law claim), amended by 319 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir.2003); McCoy v. Unicare Life & Health Ins.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bruce F. BOTSFORD, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MONTANA, INC.; Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, Defendants-Appellants
01-36019.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Feb 10, 2003.
319 F.3d 1078
Anthony F. Shelley, Miller & Chevalier, Chartered, Washington, D.C., for the appellants., Michael J. Lilly, Berg, Lilly & Tollefsen, P.C., Bozeman, Montana, for the appellee.
Trott, Nelson, Thomas.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

[*1079] ORDER

The Opinion filed December 23, 2002,, slip op. 1, is amended as follows:

At slip op. page 10, second paragraph, line 8, after the sentence “Thus, Congress wished to create a cost-efficient, comprehensive form of medical insurance for federal employees.” add the following footnote:

As a result, FEHBA clearly “relates to the business of insurance,” triggering the express statutory exception to the states’ traditional right to regulate insurance under Section 2(b) of the McCarran-Ferguson Act. See 15 U.S.C. § 1012(b); see also Humana, Inc. v. Forsyth, 525 U.S. 299, 306, 119 S.Ct. 710, 142 L.Ed.2d 753 (1999) (noting that, under this provision, “when Congress enacts a law specifically relating to the business of insurance, that law ' controls”).

With these amendments, the panel has voted unanimously to deny the petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. RApp. P. 35.

The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED.