Legal Opinion
Ana Painter v. Golden Rule Insurance Company
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Decided November 17, 1997No. 96-3114, 96-3454PublishedCited by 38 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LOKEN, Circuit Judge.
Ana Painter claimed health insurance benefits under a conversion policy issued by Golden Rule Insurance Company (“Golden Rule”). Golden Rule denied coverage on the ground that Painter’s cancer treatments were experimental and not medically necessary. The resulting dispute has now spawned two appeals without resolving the coverage question. In No. 96-3114, Painter appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of her state law claims for malicious prosecution and breach of fiduciary duty as preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Pilot Life Insurance v. DedeauxSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendonSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Metropolitan Life Insurance v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Construction, N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 1997
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- Jeanne B. DEMARS, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. CIGNA CORPORATION and Insurance Company of North America, Defendants, AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1999
- Stella Andrews v. America's Living Centers, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2016
- Waks v. Empire Blue Cross/Blue ShieldCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Hager v. NationsBank N.A.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1999
- Logan v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue ShieldAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.