No. 23-586
United Behavioral Health, et al. v. D. K., et al.
Tags: administrative-record benefits-denial erisa health-benefits judicial-review substantial-evidence treating-provider
Latest Conference:
2024-02-16
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Is an ERISA-governed plan that denies health benefits required to discuss contrary opinions from the member's treating providers in the decision letter?
2. Should courts consider the whole administrative record when deciding whether substantial evidence supports a plan's denial of health benefits, instead of limiting their review to the decision letters?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Is an ERISA-governed plan that denies health benefits required to discuss contrary opinions from the member's treating providers in the decision letter?
Docket Entries
2024-02-20
Petition DENIED.
2024-01-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/16/2024.
2024-01-02
Waiver of right of respondents David K., Kathleen K., and Amy K. to respond filed.
2024-01-02
Brief amici curiae of ERISA Industry Committee and Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.
2023-11-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 2, 2024)
2023-10-24
Application (23A365) granted by Justice Gorsuch extending the time to file until November 29, 2023.
2023-10-20
Application (23A365) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 30, 2023 to December 14, 2023, submitted to Justice Gorsuch.
Attorneys
David K., Kathleen K., and Amy K.
Brian S. King — Brian S. King, Attorney at Law, Respondent
ERISA Industry Committee and Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
United Behavioral Health and Alcatel-Lucent Medical Expense Plan for Active Management Employees
Amanda Shafer Berman — Crowell & Moring LLP, Petitioner