29 U.S.C. § 1138
Appropriations
There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to enable the Secretary to carry out his functions and duties under this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1978–2017 · leading case: DB Healthcare, LLC v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc., 852 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2017).
DB Healthcare, LLC v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc., 852 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2017). “Second, they sought a declaratory judgment that Blue Cross’s recoupment efforts violate the ERISA Claims Procedure, 29 U.S.C. § 1138 , and the ERISA Claims Procedure regulation, 29 C.”
Michael E. Walke v. Grp. Long Term Disability Ins., 256 F.3d 835 (8th Cir. 2001). “See 29 U.S.C. § 1138 (2). He submitted a copy of his personal “heart diary,” which recorded instances of fatigue, anxiety, dizziness, and irregular heartbeats while he was engaged in a variety of activities on fifteen days between April 17 and September 5, 1996.”
Perrino v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 209 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2000). “MARCUS, Circuit Judge: This appeal concerns whether plaintiffs who bring a federal suit based on claims arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) are required to exhaust available administrative remedies when their employer fails to comply with…”
Niebauer v. Crane & Co., Inc., 783 F.3d 914 (1st Cir. 2015). “” 29 U.S.C. § 1138 (2). Relying on these provisions — in particular § 1133(1) — Niebauer argues that the notice of the compensation committee’s final decision on his appeal was inadequate.”
Andrew P. Dzinglski v. Weirton Steel Corp. Ret. Comm. of Weirton Steel Corp. Ret. Plan, 875 F.2d 1075 (4th Cir. 1989). “29 U.S. C. § 1138. Dzinglski argues that he did not receive a fair hearing under 29 U.”
Bell v. Ameritech Sickness & Accident Disability Benefit Plant, 399 F. App'x 991 (6th Cir. 2010). “Finally, Bell argues that the Plan violated its duty under 29 U.S.C. § 1138 to provide notice of the specific reasons for denial.”
Ianniello v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins., 508 F. App'x 17 (2d Cir. 2013). “See 29 U.S.C. § 1138 (2); 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503 -l(h)(l).”
Pennsylvania Chiropractic Ass'n v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Ass'n, 4 F. Supp. 3d 929 (N.D. Ill. 2013). “” 29 U.S.C. § 1138 (1). In addition, employee benefit plans must provide participants and beneficiaries with “full and fair review by the appropriate named fiduciary of the decision denying the claim.”
Montgomery v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 403 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (N.D. Ga. 2005). “” In its brief in response to the plaintiffs motion, the defen *1263 dant presents five arguments why statutory penalties are inappropriate in this case: (1) the plaintiffs claim for statutory penalties and attorney fees is not properly before this court since the plaintiff…”
Pickett v. United Mine Workers of Am. Health & Ret. Funds, 467 F. Supp. 2 (E.D. Tenn. 1978). “However, in support of his motion for a summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted to this Court certain affidavits somewhat substantiating his contention that, on August 30, 1957, he was employed by the aforementioned coal company in a classified job, and that such employer was…”
Lamontagne v. Pension Plan of United Wire, Metal & Mach. Pension Fund, 869 F.2d 153 (2d Cir. 1989). “Finally, Lamontagne argues that the 1978 denial could not have triggered the statute of limitations since that denial violated ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1138 (1) (1982), which requires that an employee benefit plan, after denying a claim for benefits, “provide adequate notice in…”
Robbin Cromer-Tyler v. Edward R. Teitel, 294 F. App'x 504 (11th Cir. 2008). “29 U.S.C. § 1138 ; 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503 -l(g).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.