No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2021
As the shield preempting state suits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) has been successfully pierced (see California Div. Of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Constr. N.A. Inc., 519 U.S. 316 (1997) and Duke v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 57 F.3d 350 (3rd Cir. 1995)), plaintiff attorneys have begun to use the ERISA statute itself to further litigation against managed care organizations. The court in Shea v. Esensten, 107 F.3d 625 (8th Cir. 1997), held in a landmark decision that an HMO's failure to disclose financial incentives that discourage a treating physician from providing essential health care referrals for conditions covered under the plan benefit structure is a breach of ERISA's fiduciary duties.