Weaver v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America
| Barbara Weaver |
| The Prudential Insurance Company of America and Hendersonville Hospital Corp. |
| 3:2010cv00438 |
| May 4, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Nashville Office |
| Davidson |
| Robert Echols |
| Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 |
| 29 U.S.C. ยง 1132 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
67
ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the Court finds that (1) the plaintiff does not have an adequate remedy against the defendant hospital under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B); (2) if the Plaintiff's allegati ons are true, the Hospital acted as an ERISA fiduciary in its dealings with her; and (3) if the Plaintiff proves her version of facts at trial, the plaintiff may recover damages under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3), pursuant to Krohn v. Huron Memorial H ospital, 173 F.3d 542, (6th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the defendant's motion 59 is hereby DENIED. This matter remains scheduled for trial on December 6, 2011. However, this Court is of the opinion that the order entered herein, though interloc utory in nature, involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. 28 U.S.C.A. § ; 1292(b). If a prompt application for permission to appeal is made to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, as provided in § 1292(b), this Court will entertain a motion to stay these proceedings pending resolution of the application to appeal and, if applicable, the resolution of such appeal. Id. It is so ORDERED. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas Wiseman on 10/12/11. (tmw)
|
|
Filing
56
TRIAL ORDER: Bench Trial set for 12/6/2011, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 783 before Senior Judge Thomas Wiseman. Pretrial Conference set for 11/28/2011, at 10:00 AM before Senior Judge Thomas Wiseman. Exhibit List due by 11/23/2011. Witness List due by 11/23/2011. Joint Proposed Pretrial Order due by 11/23/2011. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas Wiseman on 12/30/10. (tmw)
|
|
Filing
52
ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the Court finds that subject-matter jurisdiction lies in this Court; Plaintiff's motion to remand is therefore DENIED. Prudential's motion for judgment is therefore GR ANTED. The Hospital's motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the claims against the Hospital are likewise preempted by ERISA. The negligence claim, even though recast as a claim for benefits under ERISA, fails for the same reasons as the claim against the hospital. The motion to dismiss that claim will be GRANTED and the negligence claim DISMISSED. Plaintiff's state-law claim for breach of fiduciary duty is preempted by ERISA but shall be construed as a claim under ERISA for breach of fiduciary duty. As set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the Court finds that Plaintiff has successfully stated a claim under ERISA for breach of fiduciary duty; the motion to dismiss is DENIED insofar as it seeks dismissal of that claim. It is so ORDERED. The case is remanded back to the magistrate judge for further case management as may be necessary. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas Wiseman on 12/7/10. (tmw)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Tennessee Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
