From Reuters: “An Ohio chiropractor can bring a lawsuit against Aetna Inc in federal court despite having already settled his claims against the company, a U.S. judge has ruled.
U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp in New Jersey said last week that an arbitration agreement between chiropractor Peter Manz and Aetna was not binding because his claims arose from a health insurance plan governed by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
The ruling applies a similar decision last May from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, CardioNet Inc et al v. Cigna Health Corp.
Manz is one of the plaintiffs in a class action filed against Aetna in 2009 by a group of healthcare providers saying the company regularly allowed claims and then later rescinded them, violating ERISA.
Some of the providers, including Manz, had agreements with Aetna that required them to arbitrate any disputes. In June 2011, U.S. District Judge Joel Pisano, who was then presiding over the case, ordered Manz to arbitrate with Aetna, and the two eventually settled.
In May 2014, however, the 3rd Circuit ruled in the CardioNet case that arbitration agreements between doctors and insurers could not be enforced when the underlying healthcare plan was governed by ERISA. To enforce them, the court ruled, would violate patients’ rights under the law.
Manz moved to vacate his settlement in light of the decision.
In granting that motion last Wednesday, Shipp said the 3rd Circuit’s decision had made a substantial change in the law requiring it to be thrown out.”
The case is Association of New Jersey Chiropractors et al v. Aetna Inc, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, No. 3:09-cv-03761.
The court’s finding that an employer-employee arbitration agreement was non-binding because the claim arose under other federal law (the Employee Retirement Income Security) leads tangentially to an interesting question: When, if ever, should employer-employee arbitration agreements trump other protections specifically enumerated under federal law? As quoted by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cardionet, “The preeminent concern of Congress in passing the [Federal Arbitration Act] was to enforce private agreements into which parties had entered, and that concern requires that we rigorously enforce agreements to arbitrate . . . .” But how frequently is this unjust?
Specifically, this decision brings to mind the case of Nicole Mitchell, a weather anchor who was fired from her network job and alleged a complaint against her employers under Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). Although she was a uniformed member of the United States military alleging that her termination was related to her service, Ms. Mitchell’s case was settled behind closed doors because of an arbitration clause in the contract. The result of that arbitration was sealed, confidential, and may never be appealed.
See e.g., http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nan-aron/how-your-rights-get-lost_b_5951950.html
I cannot find any discussion of USERRA and arbitration agreements on indisputably.org, but I think that it would make for interesting discussion. What follows in a link to a somewhat dated article on USERRA and arbitration agreements, but it is an interesting read. Also, it does not appear that the issues it addresses have been further addressed either legislatively or judicially: Arbitrability of USERRA Claims: Battle on the Home Front. Thoughts?