This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Insurance
Interference with Contract
ERISA

David B. Arkin v. Baybrook Medical Services Inc.

Published: May 18, 2002 | Result Date: Jan. 2, 2002 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: GIC762135 Bench Decision –  $0

Judge

Raymond F. Zvetina

Court

San Diego Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Craig A. Miller
(Miller & Calhoon)


Defendant

Kris P. Thompson

Gina P. Pejuan


Facts

A contract between the plaintiff and Fortis Benefits Insurance Co. (Fortis) states that the plaintiff is entitled to
payment of disability benefits if he is unable to perform at least one material duty of his regular occupation
because of sickness or injury. The defendant arranges Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) for clients
such as Fortis.
In June 1999, the plaintiff submitted a claim for disability benefits to Fortis. In August 1999, Fortis requested
that the defendant schedule an IME appointment for the plaintiff. The defendant arranged to have Dr. Robert L.
Magnuson perform the IME of the plaintiff. Dr. Magnuson examined the plaintiff and submitted a report to the
defendant expressly stating that the plaintiff was currently unable to function as an anesthesiologist, supporting
the plaintiffÆs claims for disability benefits. The defendant forwarded the IME report to Fortis. Fortis
considered Dr. MagnusonÆs report in determining the plaintiffÆs disability status. Fortis ultimately denied the
plaintiff disability benefits.
The plaintiff alleged interference with contract, unfair business practices, negligent infliction of emotional
distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The defendant contended that claims against a third party administrative agency that
schedules IMEs on behalf of a disability insurance company are pre-empted by ERISA.


#107267

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390