Legal Opinion

Kruger Clinic Orthopaedics, L.L.C. v. Regence BlueShield

Washington Supreme Court

Decided July 13, 2006No. Nos. 76719-0; 76886-2Published

1Opinion of the Court

¶1

Owens, J.

Insurance carrier Regence BlueShield (Regence) provides its insureds with health care services on a prepaid basis through subscriber agreements. Regence contracts with health care providers who agree to serve Regence’s insureds on a fee-for-service basis. At issue in these consolidated cases is the enforceability of the arbitration clauses in the provider agreements that Regence entered into with Kruger Clinic Orthopaedics (Kruger) and with Tacoma Orthopaedic Surgeons and others (collectively, the Tacoma Orthopaedic providers).

*295¶2 We conclude that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA),…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Securities & Exchange Commission v. National Securities, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Group Life & Health Insurance v. Royal Drug Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1979
  3. United States Department of Treasury v. FabeSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  4. Leingang v. PIERCE CO. MED. BUREAU, INC.Washington Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Leingang v. Pierce County Medical Bureau, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1997

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API