29 U.S.C. § 1183

Guaranteed renewability in multiemployer plans and multiple employer welfare arrangements

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar

A group health plan which is a multiemployer plan or which is a multiple employer welfare arrangement may not deny an employer whose employees are covered under such a plan continued access to the same or different coverage under the terms of such a plan, other than—(1) for nonpayment of contributions;(2) for fraud or other intentional misrepresentation of material fact by the employer;(3) for noncompliance with material plan provisions;(4) because the plan is ceasing to offer any coverage in a geographic area;(5) in the case of a plan that offers benefits through a network plan, there is no longer any individual enrolled through the employer who lives, resides, or works in the service area of the network plan and the plan applies this paragraph uniformly without regard to the claims experience of employers or any health status-related factor in relation to such individuals or their dependents; and(6) for failure to meet the terms of an applicable collective bargaining agreement, to renew a collective bargaining or other agreement requiring or authorizing contributions to the plan, or to employ employees covered by such an agreement.(Pub. L. 93–406, title I, § 703, as added Pub. L. 104–191, title I, § 101(a), Aug. 21, 1996, 110 Stat. 1946.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 2000–2012 · leading case: Mary Laird v. Norton Healthcare, Inc., 442 F. App'x 194 (6th Cir. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mary Laird v. Norton Healthcare, Inc., 442 F. App'x 194 (6th Cir. 2011). “” 29 U.S.C. § 1183 . This Circuit has determined that “the administrative scheme of ERISA requires a participant to exhaust his or her administrative remedies prior to commencing suit in federal court.”

Brimer v. Life Ins. Co. of North Am., 462 F. App'x 804 (10th Cir. 2012). “Such grounds do not concern “the decision denying the claim,” 29 U.S.C. § 1183 (2), do not address “the adverse benefit determination” in the first instance, 29 C.”

Butler v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 109 F. Supp. 2d 856 (S.D. Ohio 2000). “Although the Court has concluded, supra, that the Plaintiff is not entitled to administrative review under 29 U.S.C. § 1183 , she may challenge the Defendants’ computations at trial, if she believes that they are erroneous.”

Pennsylvania Chiropractic Ass'n v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Ass'n, 903 F. Supp. 2d 604 (N.D. Ill. 2012). “29 U.S.C. § 1183 . Plaintiffs assert their ERISA claims in three counts in the fourth amended complaint.”

Educators Mut. Ins. Ass'n v. Evans, 258 P.3d 598 (Utah Ct. App. 2011). “Rather, he contends that Educators should have extended his benefits notwithstanding his failure to provide the medical records Educators required.”

Uaw Local 540 v. Baretz, 159 F. Supp. 2d 968 (E.D. Mich. 2001). “See 29 U.S.C.A. § 1183 (1); 29 C.F.R. 2560.503-l(j)(l) and (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.