Who does a former employee of King County Medical Blue Shield contact to find out about their pension plan benefits?

Answer 1

Plaintiff Lyn Boland has brought this action under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.(ERISA), contesting defendants' denial of coverage under an employer's medical plan. Defendants have filed separate motions for summary judgment, but refer to and incorporate each other's briefs and affidavits and will be referred to collectively as "defendants." The Boeing Company ("Boeing") emphasizes contract principles to argue for dismissal. Boeing contends that the plan language *640 and the underlying bargaining agreement classify as an excluded experimental procedure any procedure so defined by the national Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association ("national Blue Cross"). Defendant King County Medical Blue Shield ("King County Medical") on the other hand emphasizes the plan's exclusion of any experimental procedure that is not generally recognized by the medical profession. Plaintiff insists that defendants' decisions as to what constitutes experimental treatment should not be entitled to deference because of a conflict of interest or because the decisions were not made by a fiduciary.

The Court has considered the briefs and affidavits filed by the parties and concludes that summary judgment in favor of defendants is justified insofar as the employer medical plan relies on the classification of a third party national Blue Cross. This conclusion involves no disputed issue of material fact and can be decided by the Court as a question of law premised on the plain language of the plan. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.