Managed Care Organizations Manage to Escape Liability: Why Issues of Quantity vs. Quality Lead to ERISA's Inequitable Preemption of Claims

Authors

Patricia Mullen Ochmann

Abstract

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.

Recommended Citation

Ochmann, Patricia Mullen (2001) "Managed Care Organizations Manage to Escape Liability: Why Issues of Quantity vs. Quality Lead to ERISA's Inequitable Preemption of Claims," Akron Law Review: Vol. 34: Iss. 2, Article 4.
Available at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol34/iss2/4