Attorney Mark DeBofsky is a member of the firm as well as an adjunct professor of law at University of Illinois-Chicago John Marshall Law School. He is a prolific author who has written many journal articles and has been a regular columnist for the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin since 2004.
Over the past several months, there has been a flurry of federal appellate opinions questioning civil procedure norms in Employee Retirement Income Security Act benefits litigation.[1] A pair of brand new appellate decisions have also focused on the same issue, although not necessarily in a direction that harmonizes ERISA civil procedure with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A lengthy history of discrimination by health insurers against claims involving behavioral health conditions and substance use disorders led Congress to pass the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act3 (MHPAEA) in 2008. 4[…]
Defined benefit (DB) pension plans used to be the prevalent form of retirement benefit offered by American employers to their employees. […]
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)1 governs both retirement and welfare benefits2 (i.e., health, life, and disability benefits) provided by employers to their employees. […]
Introduction The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) [1] directly impacts the lives of most Americans, yet few are familiar with ERISA despite its governance of pensions and retirement plans, along with other employer provided fringe benefits such as health, life, and disability insurance. There are only limited exceptions to ERISA’s scope – […]
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act permits aggrieved individuals whose employee benefit claims have been denied to bring a civil action to recover benefits claimed to be due […]
On Aug. 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its third opinion in Wit v. United Behavioral Health, vacating its January opinion, which itself replaced an earlier memorandum disposition.[1] […]
Since the publication in 1943 of James M. Cain’s noir classic, “Double Indemnity,” there has been a public fascination with accidental death insurance. Surprisingly, even when a sudden and unexpected death occurs other than as a result of a heart attack or other clear-cut medical condition, the issue of whether the death was accidental or […]
Claims involving disability benefits comprise a sizable portion, if not a majority, of cases litigated under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). [..]
Employee benefit claimants are frequently surprised by the limited remedies to them under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. However, a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Liu v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,[1] might open the door to additional remedies.