Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
266 federal appellate · 99 district · 50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 598 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2024 · most notably Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Glenn (2008), Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila (2004)
266 federal appellate · 99 district · 50 state decisions — followed in 12 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
reviewedJass v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc. (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1011 (§ 1 of the McCarran-Ferguson Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1012 (§ 2 of the McCarran-Ferguson Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 653 · 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1133 (§ 503 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (§ 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Firestone Tire and Rubber Company v. Bruch · Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux · DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters · United Steelworkers v. American Manufacturing Co. · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Taylor
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 598 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) enjoin any act or practice that violates any provision of this title or the terms of the plan, or (B) to obtain other appropriate equitable relief (i) to redress such violations or (ii) to enforce any provisions of this title or the terms of the plan.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“But this case addresses a state regulatory scheme that provides no new cause of action under state law and authorizes no new form of ultimate relief. While independent review ... may well settle the fate of a benefit claim under a particular contract, the state statute does not enlarge the claim beyond the benefits available in any action brought under § 1132(a). And although the reviewer’s determination would presumably replace that of the HMO as to what is “medically necessary” under this contract, the relief ultimately available would still be what ERISA authorizes in a suit for benefits under § 1132(a).”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“this effect of eliminating an insurer's autonomy to guarantee terms congenial to its own interests is the stuff of garden variety insurance regulation through the imposition of standard policy terms.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.