May 23, 2012

Group Health Plan Eligibility, COBRA and the Importance of Clear Leave of Absence Policies

An employee’s leave of absence can raise a number of practical and legal issues.  That is why employers need to include clear leave of absence policies in employee handbooks and in employee benefit plans.  A recent federal court decision illustrates how important this is in the group health plan and COBRA context.  

In Jennings v. D.F. Crane Constr. Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41794 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 10, 2009), Mr. Jennings was participating in the company’s health plan.  Mr. Jennings took a leave of absence, and while he was on leave the company terminated his employment.  The dispute boiled down to when Jennings lost his coverage under the company’s health plan (i.e., when the COBRA qualifying event occurred).  The company argued that the qualifying event occurred when Mr. Jennings’leave began.  Mr. Jennings argued that the qualifying event did not occur until the company told him he was no longer needed.  The court sided with Mr. Jennings, and as a result Crane Construction was responsible for providing medical coverage for Mr. Jennings for the period in dispute.  

The problem with the Jennings case and many others like it is that the litigation could have been avoided.  In the Jennings case, the dispute probably would have been avoided if the group health plan had included rules for non-FMLA leaves of absence.  For non-FMLA leave, it is generally up to the employer to decide, when designing its group health plan, when a leave of absence will trigger loss of coverage and related COBRA rights.  If the employer wants the leave of absence to trigger loss of coverage immediately, the employer can see to it that the appropriate language is included in the plan documents and summary plan description.  Note, however, that if the plan is an insured plan the employer will have to work with its insurance company to address the leave of absence issues.  

In summary, clear leave of absence policies are essential to the proper administration of group health plans and COBRA rights.  Without clear leave of absence policies, it will be difficult in many cases to determine when an employee has lost coverage under his or her employer’s group health plan.  That, in turn, will make COBRA disputes and COBRA noncompliance more likely.

© 2009 Poyner Spruill LLP.

About the Author

Partner

David practices in the area of employment litigation.  He regularly advises and defends clients in race, age, disability and sex discrimination and harassment cases; reviews handbooks and termination issues; and provides compliance advice on matters of employment law.

Representative Experience

McNeil v. Scotland County - Obtained summary judgment for employer where plaintiff alleged race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as well as violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Successfully...

919-783-2854
Associate

Kate's practice is focused in the areas of Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation. She assists public and private employers with the full range of qualified and non-qualified plans, welfare benefit plans, fringe benefit plans, non-qualified deferred compensation plans and executive compensation plans, including matters concerning ERISA, Internal Revenue Code, HIPAA and COBRA compliance.

Representative Experience

  • Advising private and public sector employers in the operation of retirement plans and executive compensation packages, including matters...
919-783-2886

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.