United Food & Commercial Workers & Employers Arizona Health & Welfare Trust, a Trust Dennis Davison Raymond Florom v. Renee Ann Pacyga

Good Law
801 F.2d 1157·55 U.S.L.W. 2299·7 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2295·1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 31814
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 7, 198685-2860California2,090 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rea, J.

Defendant-Appellant Pacyga was injured in an automobile collision, and claimed medical benefits from the ERISA welfare benefit plan of her employer in Arizona. In order to collect these benefits, Pacyga was required by the United Food and Commercial Workers and Employers Arizona Health and Welfare Trust [hereinafter the Plan] to execute a document promising to reimburse the Plan if she were to collect damages from the third party who was liable for the automobile collision. Pacyga executed the form under protest, and received the medical benefits.

The Plan and two trustees then brought this declaratory judgment action, seeking a determination that its reimbursement requirement was enforceable under Arizona law, in spite of a common law prohibition on assignment of third party claims in Arizona. The district court, Hardy, J., held on cross motions for summary judgment that the subrogation clause in the Plan was valid, because the prohibition on assignment of third party claims in Arizona was preempted by ERISA, and, in any event, that Arizona law would not apply the anti-subrogation law to an ERISA plan.

We affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment. ERISA…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.