Articles From William L. Scogland

Supreme Court finds that HMO employee benefit plan eligibility decisions are governed by ERISA and therefore not subject to claims under state health care liability laws By William L. Scogland & Galen Mason Employee Benefits, September 2004 In Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila and CIGNA Health Care, Inc. v. Calad, the Supreme Court ruled that patients cannot use state health care liability laws to sue health maintenance organizations (HMOs) for claims relating to an HMO's interpretation of an employer-provided benefit plan.
Postmortem QDROs-May benefits be divided after death? By William L. Scogland & Mark A. Berggen Employee Benefits, June 2004 Issues regarding the qualification of postmortem domestic relations orders ("DROs") continue to exist as a unified approach among the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals has yet to be made clear to benefit law practitioners.
New rules for 204(h) notices By William L. Scogland & Teresa Faherty Blomquist Employee Benefits, October 2003 The Internal Revenue Service's final regulations for 204(h) notices, as such notices were amended by EGTRRA, are examples of subtle changes made to an ERISA rule in reaction to a much more controversial phenomenon, viz., the conversion of traditional defined benefit plans to cash balance plans.

Spot an error in your article? Contact Sara Anderson at For information on obtaining a copy of an article,visit the ISBA Newsletters page.

Select a Different Author