Cigna
Health Care v. Calad, No. 03-83, andAetna Health
Care v. Davila, No. 02-1845, U.S. Supreme Court
(filed Jan. 22, 2004).
On
Nov. 3, the Court granted cert in two consolidated
cases involving the tort liability of HMOs
under state statute. In Calad, plaintiff, a member
of the Cigna HMO, underwent a hysterectomy performed
by a Cigna doctor. Despite the doctors recommendation
of a longer stay, Cigna discharged her after one
day. She suffered complications that required her
readmission to the emergency room. In Davila, plaintiff,
a post-polio patient suffering diabetes and arthritis,
belonged to Aetnas HMO. His doctor prescribed
Vioxx for arthritis. Aetna required that plaintiff
try two cheaper medications first, and would pay
for Vioxx only if they caused adverse reactions.
Plaintiff suffered bleeding ulcers that caused a
near heart attack and internal bleeding requiring
five days of critical care.
Both
plaintiffs sued in state court under the Texas Health
Care Liability Act, alleging that the HMOs failed
to use ordinary care in making medical necessity
decisions. Defendants removed to federal court,
alleging that the state law claims were preempted
by ERISA, and moved to dismiss. The district court
granted the motions. The Fifth Circuit reversed
in part, holding that plaintiffs actions were
not completely preempted by ERISA. The court held
that plaintiffs state law claims based on
breach of fiduciary duty and failure to use ordinary
care in making decisions concerning the quality
of benefits (as opposed to pure eligibility decisions)
were not foreclosed by ERISA.
The
Supreme Court granted review on the issue of ERISA
preemption. In AAJs amicus brief, Senior
Amicus Counsel Jeffrey White urged the Court to
define the scope of the implied preemption narrowly
and argued that holding HMOs accountable for the
harms they cause by failing to exercise due care
will not result in inordinate litigation or higher
insurance costs.
AAJ's
Amicus Curiae Brief: Cigna
Health Care v. Calad and Aetna Health Care v. Davila