Employee benefits and ADA: nondiscrimination or mandated benefits?

Article Abstract:

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) has generated many unresolved questions regarding employers' responsibility. Although the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is studying the impact of ADA on isurance practices, its final regulations do not deal fully examine insurance and employee benefit issues. The US Department of Justice on the other hand, gives additional guidance to employers through its regulations on insurance companies under Title III of ADA as well as providibg a framework for analysis.

Author: Heylman, Paul Monroe, Duston, Robert L., Robins, Scott
Regulation misc. commercial sectors, Contracts, Disability insurance

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Clark v. K-Mart Corp., 15 EBC 1452, 1992 WL 106935 (Westlaw) (3rd Cir. 1992)

Article Abstract:

The District Court of Pennsylvania decided that the Blue Cross Assn's denial of health coverage to Susan Clark on the basis of experimental nature of the high-dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow transplant (HDCT/ABMT) was arbitrary and capricious. With this decision, the court ordered Blue Cross Assn to pay for the HDCT/ABMT treatment. On Jun 15, 1992, however, a majority of judges decided to conduct a hearing en banc at the court's convenience.

Pension, health, and welfare funds, Variety stores, Retail Stores, NEC, Retail industry, Retail trade, Kmart Holding Corp., Blue Cross Association, Clark, Susan

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Saah v. Contel Corp., 780 F.Supp. 311, 14 EBC 2391 (D.Md. 1991)

Article Abstract:

The District Court of Maryland decided in the case of Saah v. Contel Corp that the plan administrator's decision to deny precertification for treatment under the employee group health plan was reasonable and aupported by the plan's language. The court also stated that denial of the precertification did not deny Norman Saah Sr.'s son of the necessary medical coverage but only limited the coverage to psychiatric care as laid out in the plan's terms.

Telephone communications, exc. radio, Communication services, not elsewhere classified, Health insurance industry, Contel Corp., Saah, Norman, Sr., United States. District Court. Maryland

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: Laws, regulations and rules, Employee benefits, Cases
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.