ILNews

Judges rule on pre-existing condition case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


Highlighting the highly controversial health care debate that’s played out during the past year, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled on a pretty straightforward case about a pre-existing condition clause that denied a man’s claim for long-term disability benefits.

Judge Terry Evans wrote for the unanimous panel, affirming a decision from Judge Larry McKinney in the Southern District of Indiana that had rejected the man’s Employment Retirement Income Security Act suit and granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. The case is The Estate of Norman Blanco, by its personal representative Steven C. Blanco v. Prudential Insurance Company Of America, Pruvalue Insurance Benefits Trust, and Porsche Engineering Services Inc., No. 08-2074.

“The phrase ‘preexisting condition’ was frequently in the news as efforts to enact national health care reform were debated over the last year,” Judge Evans began in the ruling. “And although our case today involves a preexisting condition exclusion, there is a twist.”

Now deceased, Norman Blanco had started at the age of 45 as an engineer at Porsche Engineering Services in Michigan in April 2005. His company’s welfare benefit plan covered by ERISA kicked in a month later and was underwritten and administered by Prudential Insurance, providing long- and short-term disability benefits to those who couldn’t work. Blanco suffered a heart attack in July and was unable to work for several days while hospitalized, and he later submitted a disability benefit claim. The short-term benefits were approved, but the long-term benefits weren’t because Prudential determined he had a preexisting condition based on a history of worsening heart disease and prior heart attacks and treatment that he didn’t always adhere to.

At the District Court level, Judge McKinney granted a summary judgment motion by Prudential Insurance, which had upheld the claim denial during an internal review process. The trial judge had limited some of the evidence in that case, and the appellate panel affirmed his decision. Blanco died following that decision, and his estate carried on the appeal.

Analyzing Judge McKinney’s ruling, the 7th Circuit decided that Blanco did fall under the pre-existing exclusion sections of ERISA and couldn’t receive those long-term benefits.

“The purpose of the policy is to exclude from coverage a person who is aware of something – be it a sign or symptom – for which a reasonably prudent person should seek treatment,” Judge Evans wrote.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT