Willis v. Wu, 607 S.E.2d 63 (S.C. 2004).Google Scholar

Id. at 71.Google Scholar

Id. at 66.Google Scholar

See id. at 68.Google Scholar

Id. at 70.Google Scholar

Id. at 71.Google Scholar

Blake v. Cruz, 698 P.2d 315, 321 (Idaho 1984).Google Scholar

Willis, 607 S.E.2d at 69.Google Scholar

Berman v. Allan, 404 A.2d 8, 12 (NJ, 1979).Google Scholar

See id. at 12–13.Google Scholar

Id. at 12.Google Scholar

Willis, 607 S.E.2d at 71.Google Scholar

See, e.g., Blake, 698 P.2d at 322.Google Scholar

See, e.g., Turpin v. Sortini, 643 P.2d 954, 963–64 (CA, 1982).Google Scholar

Id. at 965–66.Google Scholar

Id. at 964.Google Scholar

Harbeson v. Parke-Davis, Inc., 656 P.2d 483, 495 (WA, 1983).Google Scholar

Procanik v. Cillo, 478 A.2d 755, 762 (NJ, 1984).Google Scholar

Willis, 607 S.E.2d at 71.Google Scholar

Id. at 71.Google Scholar

Id. at 67, n.2.Google Scholar

See id.Google Scholar

See, e.g., Turpin, 643 P.2d at 962–63.Google Scholar

Empire HealthChoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136, 140 (2d Cir. 2005).Google Scholar

The Federal Employees Health Benefits Act directs the U.S. Office of Personnel Management to contract with health insurance plans to provide healthcare benefits for federal employees throughout the United States. See 5 U.S.C. § 8902(a)(2004).Google Scholar

Empire HealthChoice Assurance provides health insurance to enrollees in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut and is a licensee of the BlueCross and BlueShield Association. “About Empire,” at <http://www.empireblue.com/about_empire/index.shtml> (last visited May 15, 2005).+(last+visited+May+15,+2005).>Google Scholar

Empire HealthChoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 2003 WL 22171693 at 5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2003).Google Scholar

Empire HealthChoice, 396 F.3d at 140.Google Scholar

Id. at 140–41 (citing Boyle v. United Techs. Corp., 487 U.S. 500, 507, 508 [1988].Google Scholar

Id. at 141.Google Scholar

Id. (citing Woodward Governor Co. v. Curtiss-Writing Flight Sys., Inc., 164 F.3d 123, 126 [2d Cir. 1999]).Google Scholar

Id. at 141–42 (citing American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219, 233 n. 8 [1995]).Google Scholar

Id. at 143 n.4.Google Scholar

Id. at 143.Google Scholar

Id. The preemption clause states: “The terms of any contract under this chapter which relate to the name, provision, or extent of coverage or benefits (including payments with respect to benefits) shall supersede and preempt any State or local law, or any regulation issued thereunder, which relates to health insurance or plans.” 5 U.S.C. § 8902(m)(1) (2004).Google Scholar

Id. In so deciding, the court rejected Empire's argument that the contract terms constitute law.Google Scholar

These two conditions are: (1) when the contract terms under the FEHBA in question “relate to the nature, provision, or extent of coverage or benefits” and (2) when state laws “relate to health insurance or plans.” Id. at 146.Google Scholar

Id. at 156 (Raggi, J. dissenting).Google Scholar

Id. at 148. The Court specifically applied the reasoning set forth in American Airlines v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219, 232 (1995) (ERISA “channel[s] civil actions into the federal courts, under a comprehensive scheme detailed in the legislation, designed to promote prompt and fair claims settlement”). Id. at 149.Google Scholar

Id. at 149, 145 n.7.Google Scholar

See Marshall, K. L., “Understanding Merrell Dow: Federal Question Jurisdiction for State-Federal Question Jurisdiction for State-Federal Hybrid Cases” Washington University Law Quarterly 77 (1999): 219, 227–37 (discussing how the Tenth, Third, and Fourth Circuits differ in their analysis of the FEHBA preemption provision.); see also Sallusti, M. P., “The Federal Employees Health Benefits Act (FEHBA): Why the Oklahoma Supreme Court Was Wrong in Allowing State Claims in Kincade v. Group Health Services,” Oklahoma Law Review 52 (1999): 273, 273–289.Google Scholar

Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Cruz, 396 F.3d 793, 798–99 (7th Cir. 2005). The facts in Cruz are very similar to those in Empire Healthchoice, as Blue Cross & Blue Shield sued the federally-employed insured for reimbursement of paid benefits after the insured received a money judgment. Id. at 795–96.Google Scholar

Id. at 798–99 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 1050374 at 9 (1998)). The Second Circuit acknowledged a similar interpretation of Congressional intent, but failed to read the 1998 amendment as lessening the requirement of showing a specific conflict with state law. See Empire HealthChoice, 396 F.3d at 156 (Raggi, J. dissenting).Google Scholar

Cruz, 396 F.3d at 799.Google Scholar

Botsford v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mont, Inc., 314 F.3d 390, 393 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that the FEHBA preemption provision closely resembles the ERISA preemption provision). Judge Raggi discussed this case in her dissent. Empire HealthChoice, 396 F.3d at 156.Google Scholar

Botsford, 314 F.3d at 394; Cruz, 396 F.3d at 797.Google Scholar

Empire Health Choice, 396 F.3d at 143.Google Scholar

Bryan v. Office of Personnel Mgmt., 163 F.3d 1315, 1320 (10th Cir. 1999).Google Scholar

Cruz, 396 F.3d at 801.Google Scholar

See Marshall, , supra note 23, at 230. Insurers like to keep actions in federal court because there is generally less hostility towards business, more uniform interpretation of federal law, and a perception of greater competency in the federal courts as compared to state courts. Id.Google Scholar

George H. Lanier Memorial Hospital v. Andrews, 2004 WL 2634298 (AL, November 19, 2004).Google Scholar

Id. at *1.Google Scholar

Id. at *1.Google Scholar

Id. at *1-*2.Google Scholar

Id. at *2.Google Scholar

Id. at *3.Google Scholar

George H. Lanier Memorial Hospital v. Andrews, 809 So.2d. 802 (AL, 2001).Google Scholar

Lanier Memorial Hospital, 2004 WL 2634298 at *3.Google Scholar

Id. at *4.Google Scholar

Ala. Code § 6-5-548(a) (2004).Google Scholar

Lanier Memorial Hospital, 2004 WL 2634298 at *4.Google Scholar

Id. at *5.Google Scholar

Ala. Code § 22-19-142(a).Google Scholar

Id. § 22-19-143.Google Scholar

Andrews v. Alabama Eye Bank, 727 So.2d 62, 65 (AL, 1999) (quoting Nicoletta v. Rochester Eye & Human Parts Bank, Inc., 519 N.Y.S.2d 928 [N.Y. Sup.Ct. 1987].Google Scholar

Lanier Memorial Hospital, 2004 WL 2634298 at *6.Google Scholar

Ala. Code § 6-5-484(a).Google Scholar

Lanier Memorial Hospital, 2004 WL 2634298 at *4 (citing Thomasson v. Diethelm, 457 So.2d 397 [AL, 1984].Google Scholar

Id. at *4 (citing Taylor v. Smith, 2004 WL 473322 [AL, March 12, 2004].Google Scholar

Id. at *5.Google Scholar

Id. at 5-*6.Google Scholar

Id. at *6.Google Scholar

Id. at *7 (citing Beasley v. MacDonald Eng’g Co., 249 So.2d 844, 846 [1971].Google Scholar

Id. at *8.Google Scholar

Id. at *8-*9.Google Scholar

Id. at *9.Google Scholar

Id. at *10.Google Scholar

Ala. Code § 22-19-140(c) (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Further, in a case dealing with unauthorized harvesting of corneas for organ donation, the Ninth Circuit held that the right of next of kin to possess the bodies of their deceased family members created a property interest, the deprivation of which must be accorded due process of law. See Newman v. Sathyavaglswaran, 287.Google Scholar

Woodruff v. Covington, 389 F.3d 1117, 1129 (10th Cir. 2004).Google Scholar

Id. at 1119.Google Scholar

25 U.S.C.S §1660b(a) (2004).Google Scholar

The United States of America was properly named as defendant for Carl Albert Hospital. Woodruff, 389 F.3d at 1120 n.1.Google Scholar

Id. at 1119.Google Scholar

28 U.S.C.S. §1346(b)(1) (2004).Google Scholar

United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 813 (1976).Google Scholar

Id. at 815.Google Scholar

Woodruff, 389 F.3d at 1128.Google Scholar

Id. at 1127.Google Scholar

Id. at 1128.Google Scholar

Id. at 1127–28.Google Scholar

25 U.S.C.S. §1660b(a) (2004); Woodruff 389 F.3d at 1128–29.Google Scholar

Woodruff, 389 F.3d at 1129.Google Scholar

Id. at 1128–29 (quoting Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996)); United States v. Nordic Village, 503 U.S. 30, 33–34 (1992).Google Scholar

Woodruff, 389 F.3d at 1128 (citing 42 U.S.C.S. §233(g)-(k) where FTCA coverage was expressly extended to eligible community health center employees, specifying them as Public Health Service employees when following certain policies and purposes).Google Scholar

Miller v. United States, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14722, at *12–13 (N.D. IL. November 5, 1990).Google Scholar

Id. at *9–10.Google Scholar

Bird v. United States, 949 F.2d 1079, 1086–89 (10th Cir. 1990).Google Scholar

Id. at 1086.Google Scholar

See Woodruff, 389 F.3d at 1127; See also Bird, 949 F.2d at 1085 (stating that the professional responsibilities of physicians are distinguished as being reserved from outside control or supervision, regardless of their status as employees or independent contractors); Miller, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14722 at *11 (stating that the roles of physician and nurse are distinguished, with physicians exercising medical judgment and nurses assisting in administration of the medical judgment).Google Scholar

Delvalle v. Sanchez, 170 F. Supp. 2d 1254, 1272 (S.D. FL. 2001).Google Scholar

Id. at 1265.Google Scholar

Id. at 1266.Google Scholar

Id. at 1265.Google Scholar

Id. at 1267.Google Scholar

Id. at 1268.Google Scholar

See Orleans, 425 U.S. at 815; Woodruff, 389 F.3d at 1129; Bird, 949 F.2d at 1089; Miller, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14722 at *12–13; Delvalle, 170 F. Supp. 2d at 1272.Google Scholar

See Woodruff, 389 F.3d at 1127–28.Google Scholar

Id. at 1127.Google Scholar

Id. at 1127.Google Scholar

Delvalle, 170 F. Supp. 2d at 1267–68.Google Scholar