Stephanie Elliot, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Fortis Benefits Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant

Good Law
2003 Daily Journal DAR 8612·337 F.3d 1138·2003 WL 21768395·30 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2606·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6837
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 1, 200302-35080, 02-35133California4,763 words

Opinion

Opinion

Cudahy, J.

Stephanie Elliot, a terminally ill former paralegal, sued Fortis Benefits Insurance Company, claiming benefits and other damages under a long-term disability insurance policy she had through her employer. She prevailed on her Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) claims, and recovered policy benefits and attorney’s fees and costs, but lost on For-tis’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on her state law claims, under which she sought non-ERISA compensatory and punitive damages. Although recent case law requires us to reconsider whether ERISA preempts such state law claims, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

I.

Stephanie Elliot was first diagnosed with cancer in 1995. She successfully underwent a right modified mastectomy, chemotherapy, stem-cell transplant and other treatment, and her breast cancer was found to be in complete remission. As of July 9,1997, her oncologists noted that she had “no measurable disease,” and regular examinations deemed her cancer-free as late as September 16, 1999. Nonetheless, to lessen the risk that she would develop cancer in the future, Elliot was placed on Tamoxifen therapy beginning in July 1996. According to her…

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.