LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

EDWARD J. HARVEY, JR., &C. v MEMBERS EMPLOYEES Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: EDWARD J. HARVEY, JR., &C., State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>I01_0044, Benefit Plans, Employee, Coverage, Metro, Insurance, Health Benefit, Illnesses, Regulation, Alcohol, Insurance Law, Abuse, Erisa, Alcoholism, Metropolitan, Insurance Savings Clause, Pre-emption, Members Employees Trust, Liquor Store, Reimbursement, Supreme Court, General Pre-emption Provision, Mewa, Retail Outlets, Self-insured Health Benefit, Participating Association Members, Nycrr, Usc, Deemer Clause, Respondent, Hospitalized Twice , ContentID: 120248739

Case Documents
1 2001-04-26 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 120649
8 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 8 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
EMPLOYEE
COVERAGE
METRO
INSURANCE
HEALTH BENEFIT
ILLNESSES
REGULATION
ALCOHOL
INSURANCE LAW
ABUSE
ERISA
ALCOHOLISM
METROPOLITAN
INSURANCE SAVINGS CLAUSE
PRE-EMPTION
MEMBERS EMPLOYEES TRUST
LIQUOR STORE
REIMBURSEMENT
SUPREME COURT
GENERAL PRE-EMPTION PROVISION
MEWA
RETAIL OUTLETS
SELF-INSURED HEALTH BENEFIT
PARTICIPATING ASSOCIATION MEMBERS
NYCRR
USC
DEEMER CLAUSE
RESPONDENT
HOSPITALIZED TWICE


   2 No. 69
   Edward J. Harvey, Jr., &c.,
   Respondent,
   v.
   Members Employees Trust for Retail Outlets,
   Appellant.
     _________________________________________________________________

   2001 NY Int. 44

   April 26, 2001

   This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
   in the New York Reports.

   Richard M. Howard, for appellant.
   Mark E. Goidell, for respondent.
     _________________________________________________________________

   LEVINE, J.:

   Edward J. Harvey, Sr., a shareholder of a retail liquor store,
   purchased medical reimbursement health coverage from defendant Members
   Employees Trust for Retail Outlets (METRO), a self-insured health
   benefit plan. METRO was established by the Metropolitan Package Store
   Association, a trade association of liquor stores, to provide health
   benefits to the employees of participating association members.
   Harvey's store was a member of the association and participated in the
   METRO plan.

   Harvey's medical records indicate that he suffered from various
   illnesses caused by alcohol abuse, including cirrhosis of the liver.
   He was hospitalized twice in 1994 and ultimately died in the hospital
   from hypovolemic shock and liver failure. The METRO plan denied
   coverage for Harvey's hospitalization and medical care on the ground
   that it did not provide benefits for illnesses arising from the use of
   alcohol. Thereafter, plaintiff, as the executor of Harvey's estate,
   brought this action for a judgment declaring that METRO was obligated
   to reimburse the estate for Harvey's hospital and medical bills.
   Plaintiff moved, and METRO cross-moved, for summary judgment.

   Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion, granted METRO's cross motion
   and dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division reversed, granted
   summary judgment to plaintiff and remitted the matter to Supreme Court
   for entry of a judgment declaring that METRO was obligated to
   reimburse Harvey's estate for the medical and hospital bills (272 2
SNIPPETS:
  • Mark E. Goidell, for respondent.
  • Edward J. Harvey, Sr., a shareholder of a retail liquor store, purchased medical
  • METRO was established by the Metropolitan Package Store Association, a trade association of
  • Harvey's medical records indicate that he suffered from various illnesses caused by alcohol
  • He was hospitalized twice in 1994 and ultimately died in the hospital from hypovolemic shock
  • The METRO plan denied coverage for Harvey's hospitalization and medical care on the ground
  • granted summary judgment to plaintiff and remitted the matter to Supreme Court for entry of a
  • The court held that Insurance Law § 3221 and its implementing regulations did not permit an
  • The court also determined that Insurance Law § 3221 and its implementing regulations were not
  • The first issue before us on this appeal is whether the Insurance Law and its implementing
  • Conceding that the Insurance Law and regulations apply to health benefit self-insurers, METRO
  • Before its amendment in 1999, Insurance Law § 3221 expressly provided that "very insurer on provides that "o policy shall limit or exclude coverage by type of illness, accident, treatment
  • It then interprets the regulation as allowing the exclusion of coverage for illnesses arising
  • In this way, the statute promotes the legislative goal "to promote and expand * * * health
  • Rather, it "controls the administration of benefit plans" by imposing, among other things,
  • ERISA provides an extensive and complex pre-emption scheme to facilitate the maintenance of a
  • The application of the Insurance Savings Clause to preserve State insurance regulation is in
  • The determination that ERISA's general pre-emption provision is triggered in this case does
  • Plaintiff urges, however, that the Deemer Clause is inapplicable to the METRO plan because,
  •    |