Legal Opinion
University Medical Associates of the Medical University of South Carolina v. UNUMProvident Corp.
District Court, D. South Carolina
Decided September 8, 2004No. 2:01-4145-18PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
AMENDED ORDER
NORTON, District Judge.
I. Background
Dr. Deborah F. Stanitski (“plaintiff’ or “Stanitski”) is a pediatric orthopedic surgeon employed by the Medical University of South Carolina (“MUSC”). MUSC requires its physicians to join University Medical Associates (“UMA”), the entity which is responsible for the billing and collections related to medical services provided by MUSC physicians. As a member of UMA, plaintiff was insured under a group disability policy. Unum Provident Corporation (“UNUMProvident”) is the holding company of Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. CampbellSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Arnold G. Barwick v. The Celotex Corporation, Keene Corporation, Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, H.K. Porter, Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1984
- Perini Corporation v. Perini Construction, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1990
- Egan v. Mutual of Omaha InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- Nichols v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1983
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Zaloga v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co. of AmericaDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2009
- Anderson v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of AmericaDistrict Court, M.D. Alabama · 2006
- Jones v. Life Insurance Co. of North AmericaDistrict Court, W.D. Kentucky · 2010
- Hunt v. South Carolina State Housing Finance and Development AuthorityDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 2021
- Knapp v. Hartford Insurance Company of the MidwestDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 2020
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.