Roy Harmon
08-07-2008, 11:25 AM
The standard of review issue that culminated (perhaps an ironic use of the word) in MetLife v. Glenn plays out in the federal courts against a backdrop of state regulation that aims to take away the ability of insurance carriers to place such provisions in their policies. A recent federal district court opinion reaffirms a recent decision in that district that the Utah ban is preempted by ERISA.
The case is Hancock v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58259 (D. Utah Aug. 1, 2008). The earlier decision, Weeks v. Unum Group, 2008 WL 2224832, No. 2:07-cv-00577 (D. Utah May 27, 2008)can be read here (https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2007cv0577-66).
I previously discussed this issue here (http://healthplanlaw.com/?p=587).
The case is Hancock v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58259 (D. Utah Aug. 1, 2008). The earlier decision, Weeks v. Unum Group, 2008 WL 2224832, No. 2:07-cv-00577 (D. Utah May 27, 2008)can be read here (https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2007cv0577-66).
I previously discussed this issue here (http://healthplanlaw.com/?p=587).