Bruce F. Botsford v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, Inc. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association
Bruce F. BOTSFORD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MONTANA, INC.; Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, Defendants-Appellants
Opinion
*1079 ORDER The Opinion filed December 23, 2002,, slip op. 1, is amended as follows:
At slip op. page 10, second paragraph, line 8, after the sentence “Thus, Congress wished to create a cost-efficient, comprehensive form of medical insurance for federal employees.” add the following footnote:
As a result, FEHBA clearly “relates to the business of insurance,” triggering the express statutory exception to the states’ traditional right to regulate insurance under Section 2(b) of the McCarran-Ferguson Act.
See 15 U.S.C. § 1012 (b);
see also Humana, Inc. v. Forsyth, 525 U.S. 299, 306, 119 S.Ct. 710 , 142 L.Ed.2d 753 (1999) (noting that, under this provision, “when Congress enacts a law specifically relating to the business of insurance, that law ' controls”).
With these amendments, the panel has voted unanimously to deny the petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc.
The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. RApp. P. 35.
The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(denying motion to remand malpractice suit brought by enrollee against carrier to state court because FEHBA completely preempted claim)
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.