Failure to provide COBRA coverage upon a reduction in hours does not violate COBRA due to existence of dual coverage and no significant gap in coverage
Article Abstract:
The US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio found in Schlett v. Avco Financial Services that the employer did not violate the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) by denying an employee COBRA coverage when she reduced her hours. The court accepted that, at the time the determination was made, the fact that she was ineligible for coverage would not result in a significant gap in coverage because she still had health care coverage under her husband's employer. It was only because of pregnancy complications that she incurred out-of-pocket expenses.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1997
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
COBRA coverage not available to dependant born during 18-month COBRA coverage period
Article Abstract:
An Arkansas district court ruled in Taylor that an employee sponsored health plan was not liable for the expenses incurred by a mother whose premature infant was born while she was a COBRA beneficiary. The court ruled that, because the child was covered under another plan that would pay some of the expenses for all of the related condition and treatments, there was no gap in coverage. Apparently, no gap in coverage exists if the health plan will pay a small amount for every procedure, despite the fact that the mother's costs exceeded $100,000.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1995
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
No COBRA violation where spouse's coverage terminated upon physical separation of parties; mental incapacity not enough to extend grace period
Article Abstract:
The US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled in Goodall v. Gates Corp. that a health insurance plan amendment to make physical separation a terminating event for spousal coverage did not violate postemployment health coverage laws under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA). Gates had satisfied COBRA's continuing coverage requirement, according to the Court. The Court was also unwilling to toll the grace period for premium payments because of the plaintiff's alleged mental incapacity.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1995
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Shoring up malpractice insurance; the importance of prior acts coverage and extended reporting endorsements. The right amount of coverage: taking inventory of risks helps determine malpractice insurance limits
- Abstracts: Careproviders' adherence to HIV standards of care is uniformly high in an integrated HIV care system. The role of state government in promoting implementation of clinical practice guidelines: The HIV/AIDS experience
- Abstracts: Service in international arbitration in light of articles 2 and 23 of the UNCITRAL rules and international practice
- Abstracts: Lawyer on call: radio host offers legal answers, advice and an outlet for listeners in 10 cities. Merciful ends: lawyer opens her heart, offers her help and compassion to AIDS patients
- Abstracts: Premerger reporting; notification rules are complex; failure to navigate overlapping national rules when negotiating a merger may scuttle the deal