This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
Mertens v. Hewitt Associates | |
---|---|
Argued February 22, 1993 Decided June 1, 1993 | |
Full case name | William J. Mertens, Alex W. Bandrowski, James A. Clark, and Russell Franz, Petitioners v. Hewitt Associates |
Citations | 508 U.S. 248 (more) 113 S. Ct. 2063; 124 L. Ed. 2d 161; 1993 U.S. LEXIS 3742; 61 U.S.L.W. 4510; 16 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2169; 93 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3918; 7 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 319 |
Case history | |
Prior | 948 F.2d 607 (9th Cir. 1991); cert. granted, 506 U.S. 812 (1992). |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Scalia, joined by Blackmun, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas |
Dissent | White, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor |
Laws applied | |
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. |
Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248 (1993), is the second in the trilogy of United States Supreme Court ERISA preemption cases that effectively denies any remedy for employees who are harmed by medical malpractice or other bad acts of their health plan if they receive their health care from their employer.