Legal Opinion
Hammers v. Aetna Life Insurance
District Court, D. Kansas
Decided April 18, 1996No. Civil Action 94-1302-FGTPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
THEIS, District Judge.
This matter is before the court on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 18). Plaintiff brings this action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., for the recovery of benefits under an employee health plan. 1 The defendant con tends that coverage is barred by the preexisting condition limitation contained in the plan.
The facts as set forth by the parties reveal the following. In the summer of 1993, while he was a graduate student at the University of Arizona, the plaintiff was diagnosed…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Torre v. Federated Mutual InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1994
- Frerking v. Blue Cross-Blue Shield of KansasDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1991
3Cited by3 opinions
- Chambers v. Family Health Plan Corp.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1996
- Caldwell v. Life Insurance Co. of North AmericaDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1997
- Riley v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of AmericaDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1998