Legal Opinion
Oaks v. Haupt
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided April 7, 2000No. 99-3471Published
1Opinion of the Court
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION 8 Copeland Oaks, et al. v. Haupt, et al. No. 99-3471 Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 ELECTRONIC CITATION:
2000 FED App. 0125P (6th Cir.)
File Name: 00a0125p.06 The plain language of this provision clearly establishes that the Plan may require the formal assignment of recovery rights as a precondition to payment of benefits, but it is equally clear that the Plan’s subrogation and refund right does not vest until UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS a covered person has accepted benefits. Hence, we find that FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT the plan administrator abused…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- University Hospitals of Cleveland v. Emerson Electric Company and Emerson Electric Company Benefit PlanCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000
- Cagle v. BrunerCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1997
- Diane M. Cutting and Warren L. Cutting v. Jerome Foods, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1993
- 19 Employee Benefits Cas. 1958, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7111, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,137 Susan M. Barnes v. Independent Automobile Dealers Association of California Health and Welfare Benefit Plan, and Does 1 Through 25, InclusiveCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- Copeland Oaks v. HauptDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1999