Bruzas v. Quezada-Garcia

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Bruzas v. Quezada-Garcia

2001 WI 127, 637 N.W.2d 34, 248 Wis. 2d 659, 2001 Wisc. LEXIS 1599

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 4, 2001

Docket00-0043

StatusPublished

This text of 2001 WI 127 (Bruzas v. Quezada-Garcia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bruzas v. Quezada-Garcia, 2001 WI 127, 637 N.W.2d 34, 248 Wis. 2d 659, 2001 Wisc. LEXIS 1599 (Wis. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

¶ 1. This case is before the court on certification from the court of appeals pursuant to Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.61 on the question of "whether *661 an ERISA health benefit plan must expressly confer discretion to the plan administrator before a reviewing court owes deference to the administrator's interpretations of the plan and actions taken under the plan."

¶ 2. The underlying issue is whether the subrogation clause in Underwriters Laboratories' ERISA plan allows subrogation where the plan beneficiary has not been made whole. We accepted the court of appeals' certification on the standard of review question noted above.

¶ 3. At oral argument, counsel acknowledged that the record contains no explicit subrogation determination by the plan administrator, nor any explicit interpretation of the plan's subrogation language by the plan administrator. While a determination or interpretation might be implicit in Underwriters Laboratories' subro-gation claim, counsel conceded that the plan administrator has not in fact issued a determination or interpretation of the plan's subrogation clause. As such, a decision about the applicable standard of review upon judicial review is premature. We therefore dismiss the certification as improvidently granted and remand the case to the court of appeals for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

By the Court — The certification from the court of appeals is dismissed as improvidently granted and the cause remanded to the court of appeals.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

¶ 1. This case is before the court on certification from the court of appeals pursuant to Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.61 on the question of "whether *661 an ERISA health benefit plan must expressly confer discretion to the plan administrator before a reviewing court owes deference to the administrator's interpretations of the plan and actions taken under the plan."

¶ 2. The underlying issue is whether the subrogation clause in Underwriters Laboratories' ERISA plan allows subrogation where the plan beneficiary has not been made whole. We accepted the court of appeals' certification on the standard of review question noted above.

¶ 3. At oral argument, counsel acknowledged that the record contains no explicit subrogation determination by the plan administrator, nor any explicit interpretation of the plan's subrogation language by the plan administrator. While a determination or interpretation might be implicit in Underwriters Laboratories' subro-gation claim, counsel conceded that the plan administrator has not in fact issued a determination or interpretation of the plan's subrogation clause. As such, a decision about the applicable standard of review upon judicial review is premature. We therefore dismiss the certification as improvidently granted and remand the case to the court of appeals for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

By the Court — The certification from the court of appeals is dismissed as improvidently granted and the cause remanded to the court of appeals.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2001 WI 127, 637 N.W.2d 34, 248 Wis. 2d 659, 2001 Wisc. LEXIS 1599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruzas-v-quezada-garcia-wis-2001.