Legal Disclaimer
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On this week’s episode, Carla DewBerry and Sarah Carlins discuss a recent California Federal District Court decision in
David Wit v. United Behavioral Health, in which the court found that the defendant insurer violated ERISA by improperly denying behavioral health claims submitted by over fifty thousand beneficiaries. The presenters discuss the ways in which the insurer’s inadequate internal guidelines for the processing of behavioral health treatment claims led to the decision, and what this might mean for the design of behavioral health claims processing guidelines under ERISA regulated health plans in the future.