![]() 5 ERISA’s claim procedure regulations require denial letters to disclose a plan’s limitations period for seeking judicial review. Therefore, Bill timely filed his Complaint within the applicable state six-year statute of limitations and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Bill’s claims, the Plan’s limitations period is unenforceable against Bill. 4 Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Partial Dismissal (“Reply”), docket no. 3 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Partial Dismissal (“Opposition”), docket no. 4 Because ERISA’s claim procedure regulations require plan administrators to disclose plan limitations periods in denial letters, and Defendants failed to do so in their denial letters for 1 Docket no. Bill responded 3 that the Plan’s limitations period is unenforceable because Defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974’s (“ERISA”) claim procedure regulations by not disclosing the limitations period in their denial letters for his claims. 2 The motion argues that a portion of the relief Bill seeks is barred by the Plan’s limitations period for seeking judicial review. Defendants United Healthcare (“UHC”), United Behavioral Health (“UBH”), and the Morgan Stanley Medical Plan (“Plan”), collectively “Defendants,” filed a Motion for Partial Dismissal 1 (the “Motion to Dismiss”) in response to Plaintiff William G.’s (“Bill”) Complaint. ![]() 1:16-cv-00144-DN District Judge David Nuffer Defendants. UNITED HEALTHCARE, UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, and the MORGAN STANLEY MEDICAL PLAN, Case No. 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION WILLIAM G., Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |