Legal Opinion
Whitney v. Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided March 19, 1996No. 93 Civ. 0299 (RWS)PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SWEET, District Judge.
This case presents the issue whether High Dose Chemotherapy (“HDC”) followed by Autologous Bone Marrow Transplantation (“ABMT”) is a covered treatment for • advanced metastatic breast cancer under a Tradition Plus Hospitalization Policy (the “Poli cy”) issued by defendant Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield (“Empire”) to plaintiff, decedent Barbara Whitney (“Whitney”). Empire rejected coverage of Whitney’s treatment on the ground that HDC/ABMT for breast cancer was “experimental” or “investigational” under the terms of the Policy. After a trial before the Court and…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Fred Brown v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1990
- Richard Atwood v. Newmont Gold Co., Inc., a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- John Doe Firm Doe v. Group Hospitalization & Medical Services, D/B/A Blue Cross and Blue Shield of the National Capital AreaCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1993
- Arthur Chambless and Mildred H. Chambless v. Masters, Mates & Pilots Pension PlanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Pens. Plan Guide (Cch) P 23931u Katherine F. Whitney, as of the Estate of Barbara Whitney v. Empire Blue Cross and Blue ShieldCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1997
- Velez v. Prudential Health Care Plan of New York, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1996
- Weissman v. First Unum Life InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1999