Term: 2005
Docket: 05-260
Joel Sereboff, Et Ux. v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc.
- Pro
05-260 SEREBOFF V. MID-ATLANTIC MEDICAL SERVICES DECISION BELOW: 407 F3d 212 CERT. GRANTED 11/28/2005 QUESTION PRESENTED: As the Court of Appeals recognized below, this case squarely presents a question that is the subject of a four-to-two circuit conflict and that was addressed but left open by this Court in Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204 (2002). As the federal government has noted, the question is of extreme national importance and likely affects over $1 billion annually. The Question Presented is: Can a plan fiduciary bring a civil action against a plan participant to obtain "appropriate equitable relief' under Section 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3), where a term of the plan requires the participant to reimburse medical expenses advanced by the plan if the participant recovers money from a third-party tortfeasor and possesses such payments in an identifiable fund? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 04-1336, 04-1403, 04-1722
In the case of Joel Sereboff, et ux. v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., 2005, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mid Atlantic Medical Services (MAMSI). The dispute arose when MAMSI sought reimbursement from its policyholders, the Sereboffs for medical expenses it had paid on their behalf after they received a settlement from a third party related to those same injuries. The court held that under Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), an insurer has the right to be reimbursed from any recovery obtained by its insured from a third-party tortfeasor if such provision is included in the plan's terms. This decision was based on ERISA’s “equitable relief” provision which allows insurers to seek repayment directly from beneficiaries' legal settlements with other parties.
In the dissenting opinion for Joel Sereboff, et ux. v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc., Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that the majority's decision to allow health insurers to seek reimbursement from beneficiaries who have recovered damages in personal injury lawsuits is not supported by the language or intent of ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act). She contended that this ruling could lead to unjust results as it allows insurers to fully recover their expenses even if it leaves injured parties with less than full compensation for their losses. Furthermore, she criticized the majority’s reliance on a technical reading of “equitable relief” under Section 502(a)(3) of ERISA and suggested a more nuanced interpretation considering both legal and equitable principles. In her view, an insurer should only be able to claim funds specifically identified as representing its medical expenses within a settlement or judgment rather than any funds received by an insured party.
