Pegram v. Herdrich
147 L. Ed. 2d 164, 2000 U.S. LEXIS 3964, 530 U.S. 211 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Treatment decisions made by a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) acting through its physicians are not fiduciary acts under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), even when those decisions involve mixed questions of patient eligibility for benefits and medical judgment.
Facts:
- Cynthia Herdrich was a beneficiary of an employee welfare benefit plan provided by her husband's employer, State Farm Insurance Company, and administered by Carle Clinic Association (Carle), an HMO.
- After experiencing groin pain, Herdrich was examined by Dr. Lori Pegram, a physician employed by and a part-owner of Carle.
- Six days later, Dr. Pegram discovered a large, inflamed mass in Herdrich’s abdomen.
- Dr. Pegram required Herdrich to wait eight days for an ultrasound to be performed at a Carle-owned facility more than 50 miles away, rather than ordering an immediate ultrasound at a local hospital.
- Before the scheduled ultrasound could be performed, Herdrich's appendix ruptured, causing peritonitis.
- Carle's HMO structure included a system of year-end profit distributions for its physician-owners, which created a financial incentive to minimize the use of medical services and facilities.
Procedural Posture:
- Cynthia Herdrich initially sued Dr. Pegram and Carle in Illinois state court for medical malpractice.
- Herdrich amended her complaint to add state-law fraud counts.
- Carle removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, arguing the fraud claims were preempted by ERISA.
- The District Court granted Herdrich leave to amend her complaint again, and she added a count alleging that Carle's structure created an incentive to limit care, which was a breach of its fiduciary duty under ERISA.
- The District Court granted Carle's motion to dismiss the ERISA count for failure to state a claim.
- The medical malpractice counts were tried before a jury, which found for Herdrich and awarded her $35,000.
- Herdrich, as appellant, appealed the dismissal of her ERISA count to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Seventh Circuit, siding with Herdrich, reversed the District Court's dismissal, holding that she had stated a valid claim for breach of fiduciary duty.
- Carle, as petitioner, successfully sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do treatment decisions made by a physician employed by a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO), where those decisions involve mixed questions of patient eligibility for benefits and medical judgment, constitute fiduciary acts within the meaning of ERISA?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Souter
No. Mixed eligibility and treatment decisions made by an HMO physician are not fiduciary acts under ERISA. The Court reasoned that ERISA's fiduciary duties were derived from the common law of trusts and primarily concern the management of plan assets and administration of benefits, not the provision of medical care. The decisions at issue, which blend a physician's medical judgment with a determination of what the plan will cover, are fundamentally medical treatment decisions. Classifying these as fiduciary acts would effectively transform state medical malpractice claims into federal ERISA claims, a result Congress did not intend. Furthermore, applying a fiduciary standard to such decisions would threaten the existence of the HMO model, which Congress has historically promoted, by creating wholesale liability based on the inherent financial incentives used for cost containment.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits the scope of ERISA's fiduciary duties in the managed care industry. By distinguishing between administrative plan management (fiduciary) and medical treatment (non-fiduciary), the Court protected HMOs from a wave of federal litigation that could have challenged their fundamental business model. The ruling channels claims regarding the quality of care back to state medical malpractice law, preventing the federalization of such disputes under ERISA. This creates a clear boundary, ensuring that ERISA governs how benefits are administered, while state tort law continues to govern the quality of medical services rendered.
