Empire Healthchoice v. McVeigh

10 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Ninth Circuit Climate Change Ruling Opens Door to Increased Litigation

    King & SpaldingCarol WoodJune 1, 2020

    The question whether the Energy Companies can be held liable for public nuisance based on production and promotion of the use of fossil fuels and be required to spend billions of dollars on abatement is no doubt an important policy question, but it does not raise a substantial question of federal law for the purpose of determining whether there is jurisdiction under § 1331. Cf.Empire Healthchoice, 547 U.S. at 701, 126 S. Ct. 2121 (holding that the federal government’s “overwhelming interest in attracting able workers to the federal workforce” and “in the health and welfare of the federal workers upon whom it relies to carry out its functions” was insufficient to transform a “state-court-initiated tort litigation” into a “federal case”).Turning to defendants’ argument that plaintiffs’ claim was completely preempted by federal law, the court determined that the Clean Air Act does not meet the requirements for complete preemption.

  2. Managed Care Lawsuit Watch - March 2011

    Crowell & Moring LLPArthur N. LernerMarch 22, 2011

    Though the coverage decision was eventually reversed, she claimed that the interruption of treatment resulted in permanent damage.Both defendants sought to remove to federal court on the basis that Farnsworth's claims were mere challenges to the coverage denials masquerading as malpractice claims, and as such, were preempted by FEHBA. Farnsworth filed a motion to remand and requested attorney's fees and costs incurred as a result of the removal issue.The district court held that the case was governed by the Supreme Court's ruling in Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677 (2006). There, the Supreme Court held that FEHBA does not result in complete preemption of "any and all state laws that in some way bear on federal employee-benefit plans" (emphasis in original).

  3. Courts Applying Gunn v. Minton Must Distinguish “Forward-Looking” From “Backward-Looking” Patent Issues

    Brooks Kushman P.C.Mark CantorNovember 14, 2014

    ; Airwatch LLC v. Good Technology Corp., 2014 WL 1651964 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 24, 2014) (no federal jurisdiction over defamation action because infringement issue was “context-specific”).[14]Gunn, 133 S. Ct. at 1067-68, quoting Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 701 (2006).[15] No. 2014-134, 2014 WL 4746002 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 16, 2014).

  4. Health Plans Petition the Supreme Court to Determine Whether FEHBA Preempts State Anti-Subrogation Statutes

    Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLPIshra SoliemanSeptember 29, 2014

    5 U.S.C. § 8902(m)(1). While the U.S. Supreme Court briefly addressed the preemption of anti-subrogation laws in Empire Healthchoice Assurance v. McVeigh, 547 US 677 (2006), its discussion was entirely in dicta. As a result, courts are divided on whether state statutes prohibiting subrogation sufficiently relate to benefits so as to fall under the purview of FEHBA’s preemption clause.Please see full alert below for more information.

  5. Managed Care Lawsuit Watch - July 2014

    Crowell & Moring LLPArthur N. LernerJuly 16, 2014

    The District Court then dismissed López-Muñoz's action without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, as outlined by the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) regulations governing denial-of-claims disputes.The First Circuit, however, reversed, relying on the United States Supreme Court's explicit holding in Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 698 (2006), that the FEHBA's preemption clause "is not sufficiently broad to confer federal jurisdiction." Although Triple-S attempted to distinguish Empire by, inter alia, claiming that the case involved the subrogation claim of an FEHBA insurer against its insured, while López-Muñoz's claims were based upon the denial of benefits, the First Circuit dismissed this argument based on the Supreme Court's assumption that the FEHBA's preemption clause reached the subrogation claim at issue in Empire.

  6. Shot Down by the Gunn: The Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Leaving Malpractice Cases Involving Underlying Patent Issues with State Courts

    Bracewell & Giuliani LLPFebruary 25, 2013

    4 Gunn, 568 U.S. ___, No. 11-1118, slip op. at 5-6 (quoting from Empire HealthChoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 699 (2006)).5 Gunn, 568 U.S. ___, No. 11-1118, slip op. at 5-6 (citing to Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Eng.

  7. Malpractice Cases Against Patent Lawyers Stay in State Court, as Supreme Court Continues to Refine Reach of Grable

    Foley & Lardner LLPFebruary 23, 2013

    at 8. Gunn is the second Supreme Court case (Empire HealthChoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U. S. 677, 699 (2006), was the other) to hold that Grable did not create a broad exception to the general rule that cases do not “arise under” federal law when state law creates the cause of action sued on.View This Blog

  8. Returning Fire: The Respondent's Brief and Several Supporting Amicus Curiae Briefs in Gunn v. Minton

    Bracewell & Giuliani LLPJanuary 14, 2013

    5 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a).6 Compare Minton v. NASD, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) with Minton v. Gunn, No. 048-207288-04 (48th Dist. Ct., Tarrant Co., Tex. Sep. 19, 2006) (Order).7 Respondent's Brief on the Merits (U.S., filed Dec. 19, 2012) (No. 11-1118) [hereinafter Respondent's Brief].8 Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 316 (2005).9 Respondent's Brief at 25-27.10 Empire Healthchoice Assurance v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677 (2006).11 Respondent's Brief at 32-34.12 Respondent's Brief at 32-36.13 U.S. Patent App. Serial No. 10/899,233 (filed Jul. 24, 2004).14 U.S. Patent No. 6,014,643 (issued Jan. 11, 2000), invalidated, Minton v. NASD, Inc., 226 F. Supp. 2d 845 (E.D. Tex. 2002), aff'd, Minton v. NASD, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

  9. Opening Shots in Gunn v. Minton: The Petitioner's Brief and Several Amici Curiae Briefs in Support

    Bracewell & Giuliani LLPDecember 29, 2012

    v. Beehner, 270 N.W.2d 336 (Neb. 2005); New Tek Manuf. v. Beehner, 751 N.W.2d 135 (Neb. 2008).14Petitioner's Brief at 51-54.15Brief of Amici Curiae American Intellectual Property Law Association in Support of Petitioners at 2-3, 27-28, Gunn v. Minton (U.S., filed Nov. 26, 2012) (No. 11-1118) [hereinafter AIPLA Brief].16Christianson v. Colt Industries, 486 U.S. 800 (1988).17Empire Healthchoice Assurance v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677 (2006).18AIPLA Brief at 2, 4-14.19Byrne v. Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP, 676 F.3d 1024 (per curiam) (Fed. Cir. 2012) (denial of en banc rehearing) (O'Malley, J., dissenting)20AIPLA Brief at 14-16, 20-21.21The several professors include, among others, Paul Janicke of University of Houston, Luke Meier of Baylor and Dustin Benham of Texas Tech.

  10. Gunning for the Supreme Court: A "Substantial" Case "Arising" from Texas That Means More Than You Think!

    Bracewell & Giuliani LLPOctober 11, 2012

    2007); Immunocept, LLC v. Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP (Fed. Cir. 2007).7 Minton v. Gunn, 301 S.W.3d 702 (Tex. App. - Fort Worth 2009) (Walker, J., dissenting).8 Minton v. Gunn, 355 S.W.3d 634 (Tex. 2011).9 Minton v. Gunn, 355 S.W.3d 634 (Tex. 2011) (Guzman, J., dissenting).10 Petition for Writ of Certiorari at i, Gunn v. Minton (U.S. Mar. 9, 2012) (No. 11-1118).11 See Christianson v. Colt Industries, 486 U.S. 800, 807-09 (1988); see alsoGrable & Sons and Empire Healthchoice Assurance v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677 (2006).12 See, e.g., Byrne v. Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP, 676 F.3d 1024 (per curiam) (Fed. Cir. 2012) (denial of en banc rehearing) (O'Malley, J., dissenting) (O'Malley cites to Minton (Tex. 2011) as an example of the issue).