Case Status
5 results
GREAT-WEST LIFE INS., ET AL. v. KNUDSON, JANETTE, ET VIR (19569)
Order dated: 01/22/01Docket number: 99-1786
Action:
The motion of Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The motion of Self-Insurance Institute of America, Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.
GREAT-WEST LIFE INS., ET AL. v. KNUDSON, JANETTE, ET VIR (19569)
Order dated: 03/19/01Docket number: 99-1786
Action:
The motion of respondents to dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted is denied. Richard G. Taranto, Esquire, of Washington, D.C., is invited to brief and argue this case, as amicus curiae, in support of the judgment below.
GREAT-WEST LIFE INS., ET AL. v. KNUDSON, JANETTE, ET VIR (19569)
Order dated: 05/14/01Docket number: 99-1786
Action:
The motion of Self-Insurance Institute of America, Inc. (SHA) for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The motion of National Association of Subrogation Professionals, Inc., for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The motion of AARP, et al., for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The motion of American Association of Health Plans, et al., for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The motion of Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted.
GREAT-WEST LIFE INS., ET AL. v. KNUDSON, JANETTE, ET VIR (19569)
Order dated: 09/07/01Docket number: 99-1786
Action:
The motion of Maryland HMO Subrogation Plaintiffs for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument is granted.
GREAT-WEST LIFE INS., ET AL. v. KNUDSON, JANETTE, ET VIR (19569)
Order dated: 09/25/01Docket number: 99-1786
Action:
The motion of respondents for leave to participate in oral argument and for divided argument is denied.
A description of the questions presented by the case has been prepared:
1. This Court previously held in Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248 (1993), that 'equitable relief, as used in 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3),means those types of relief that were typically available in equity (such as injunction, mandamus, and restitution, but not compensatory damages.) The Ninth Circuit held that enforcing a recoupment of benefits provision in a health plan violates this prohibition against seeking compensatory damages simply because recouping benefit payments involves a monetary payment. The Court therefore held that federal court lack subject matter jurisdiction over action brought by ERISA plan fiduciaries to enforce recoupment provisions. Did the Court err?
An opinion has been handed down: