Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran
ArgueDate=January 16
ArgueYear=2002
DecideDate=June 20
DecideYear=2002
FullName=Rush Prudential HMO, Incorporated, Petitioner v. Debra C. Moran, et al.
USVol=536
USPage=355
Citation=122 S. Ct. 2151; 153 L. Ed. 2d 375; 2002 U.S. LEXIS 4644; 70 U.S.L.W. 4600; 27 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2921; 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 409
Prior=On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Subsequent=
Holding=
SCOTUS=1994-2005
Majority=Souter
JoinMajority=Stevens, O'Connor, Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent=Thomas
JoinDissent=Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy
LawsApplied=Illinois's Health Maintenance Organization Act

"Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran", 536 U.S. 355 (2002) [ [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=536&page=355 536 U.S. 355] Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.] , was a case in which the Supreme Court ruled. It decided that ERISA does not preempt the Illinois medical-review statute.

ERISA envisions a national standard for welfare and pension plans so state laws which "relate to" ERISA plans are preempted under Section 514 of ERISA. However, ERISA contains a "savings" clause which saves state laws which regulate insurance under Section 514(b). The statute at issue in "Moran" regulated insurance, which is one of the functions HMOs perform. Although HMOs provide healthcare as well as insurance, the statute does not require choosing a single or primary function of an HMO. Congress has long recognized that HMOs are risk-bearing organizations subject to state regulation. Finally, allowing States to regulate the insurance aspects of HMOs will not interfere with the desire of Congress for uniform national standards under ERISA.

ee also

* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 536

References