Diaz

Diaz v. United Agricultural Employee Welfare Benefit Plan & Trust

Good Law
50 F.3d 1478·95 Daily Journal DAR 3817·1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 6112·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2211
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 27, 1995No. 93-56092California2,755 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Shadur, J.

Mario Diaz (“Mario”) and his wife Maria (collectively “Diazes”) sue United Agricultural Employee Welfare Benefit Plan and Trust (the “Plan”) and Associated Citrus Packers (“Associated”) for medical benefits assertedly owed to Diazes under the Plan, an employee welfare benefit plan subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461 , and to the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (“COBRA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1161-1169 . 1 Associated and the Plan sought and obtained summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. (“Rule”) 56 on grounds stemming from Diazes’ failure to exhaust the Plan’s internal administrative remedies. We affirm.

Background

Mario was employed by Associated as an agricultural worker during the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. On June 1, 1990 Associated switched health care providers and began offering coverage to its employees and their families through the Plan. Employees were given the option of electing single coverage for themselves alone or family coverage for themselves and eligible dependents. Associated paid the cost of employee coverage, while employees were responsible for the cost of dependent coverage via deductions from…

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.