July 20, 2019

July 19, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 18, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 17, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Anti-Assignment Provision Bars Surgery Center’s $3.3 Million Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) Benefits Claims

A federal district court in California held that the ILWU-PMA Welfare Benefit Plan’s anti-assignment provision barred Brand Tarzana Surgical Institute’s claim for benefits and thus dismissed the Institute’s claim for benefits.  In so holding, the court rejected the Institute’s argument that the plan waived the right to assert the anti-assignment provision as a defense by failing to raise the argument during the claims administration process because the anti-assignment provision is “irrelevant to the denial of a claim in the first instance,” and only obtains significance once a party files suit or engages in conduct “so inconsistent with an intent to enforce the [anti-assignment provision] as to induce a reasonable belief that such right has been relinquished.”  The opinion is available at Brand Tarzana Surgical Institute, Inc. v. International Longshore & Warehouse Union-Pacific Maritime Association Welfare Plan, No. CV 14-3191 FML, slip op. (C.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2016).

© 2019 Proskauer Rose LLP.

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Neil Shah, Proskauer Rose, Labor Rights Lawyer, ERISA Litigation Attorney,
Associate

Neil Shah is an associate in the Labor & Employment Law Department and a member of the Employee Benefits, Executive Compensation & ERISA Litigation Practice Center.

Rutgers University School of Law, Newark, J.D., 2009

 

cum laude

Order of the Coif

Managing Editor, Rutgers Law Review

Dean's Merit Scholarship

 

New York University, College of Arts & Science, B.A., 2006...

973-274-3205