In evaluating patients’ potential legal remedies, this Comment explores 1) the emergence of managed care organizations in the United States; 2) the creation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) and how it impacts patients’ claims against their MCOs; 3) the question of “quantity” versus “quality” in evaluating whether ERISA preemption exists; 4) three theories (direct liability, breach of fiduciary duty, and vicarious liability) used to hold MCOs liable for injuries resulting from malpractice or the wrongful denial of benefits; 5) state legislative attempts to circumvent ERISA’s inequitable preemption of claims; and 6) why, given ERISA’s failure to safeguard employees, new federal legislation is necessary to protect participants in managed care organizations.
"Education and the Constitution: Shaping Each Other & the Next Century,"
Akron Law Review: Vol. 34
, Article 1.
Available at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol34/iss1/1