Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T01:35:33.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ERISA: State Tort Claim for Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation Survives ERISA Preemption—Shea v. Esensten

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Peter J. Van Hemel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that ERISA did not preempt a Minnesota tort claim alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation against primary-care physicians who failed to disclose their financial incentives to minimize specialist referrals. The original action (“Shea I”) was filed in state court after the plaintiff's husband died of heart failure, alleging that his family doctors had assured him that referral to a cardiologist was unnecessary. The plaintiff filed a wrongful death suit against the doctors, their clinic, and her husband's HMO. Her complaint against the HMO alleged that certain financial incentives built into the HMO-physician contract were designed to minimize referrals to specialists. The HMO removed the case to the District of Minnesota, contending that ERISA preempted the plaintiff's wrongful death claim.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , Summer 2000 , pp. 190 - 191
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

No. 99-1388, 2000 WL 336674 (8th Cir. Mar. 31, 2000).Google Scholar
29 U.S.C. § 1144 (1999).Google Scholar
See Shea, id. note 1 at *3–6.Google Scholar
107 F.3d 625 (8th Cir. 1997).Google Scholar
See Shea, id. note 1 at *1.Google Scholar
The District Court further decided issues of mootness and statute of limitations with respect to the claims in the amended complaint. On appeal, plaintiff's claim was found not to be moot although it did have a statute of limitations bar with respect its claims against the clinic's owners.Google Scholar
519 U.S. 316Google Scholar
See Shea, , id. note 1 at *3.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
See id. at *4.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar
947 F.2d 1341 (8th Cir. 1991).Google Scholar
See Shea, id. note 1 at *6.Google Scholar
See id.Google Scholar