Content area
Full Text
Tompkins v. United Health Care, Inc., 203 F.3d 90 (1st Cir. 2000): Where an allegedly discriminatory benefit denial was reversed as a result of the operation of a plan's ERISA -mandated internal review process, the participants could not state a claim for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) since the discrimination alleged had been fully redressed. Claims based upon state discrimination laws are not exempt from preemption as part of ADA's enforcement regime where the alleged discrimination has been redressed and there is no longer any conduct unlawful under ADA. The right to assert ERISA preemption cannot be waived by contract.
Julianne Tompkins, the daughter of John and Kathleen Tompkins (the Tompkins), had Risomy 13, a chromosomal disease that required regular medical treatment that she received at New England Medical Center from 1993 to 1996. During that time, Julianne and her parents were insured by United Health Care of New England, Inc. (United) through Mr. Tompkins' employer. When Mrs. Tompkins returned to work in 1996, her employer, New Bedford Harbor Services, Inc., offered insurance through United with lower premiums. The Tompkins switched their insurance to the United coverage offered by Mrs. Tompkins' employer after being assured by United representatives that changing employer-providers would not alter...