Herdrich v. Pegram

Seventh Circuit

Herdrich v. Pegram

6 F. App'x 480

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedMay 1, 2001

DocketNo. 97-1070

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 F. App'x 480 (Herdrich v. Pegram) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Herdrich v. Pegram, 6 F. App'x 480 (7th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

On August 18,1998, a divided panel held that Cynthia Herdrich had stated a cause of action, under ERISA, for breach of fiduciary duties. Herdrich v. Pegram, 154 F.3d 362 (1998), reversed by Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211, 120 S.Ct. 2143, 147 [481]*481L.Ed.2d 164 (2000).¹ However, the United States Supreme Court disagreed and reversed this courts decision, holding that mixed eligibility and treatment decisions made by a HMO, acting through its physicians, were not fiduciary acts within the meaning of ERISA. Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211, 120 S.Ct. 2143, 147 L.Ed.2d 164 (2000). Although the Supreme Court’s decision in this case clearly outlines the failure of Pegram’s complaint, there is still the matter of costs.

In the Appellees’ Circuit Rule 54 statement, they ask that this court reverse its earlier award of cost to Herdrich (in the amount of $433.26) and award them the costs they incurred in this court and the Supreme Court.² Given that the Supreme Court has already awarded the appellees costs in the amount of $3,455.32, we need not address this issue. However, there is still the matter of who should pay for the proceedings before this court. After careful consideration, we order this court’s previous award of $433.26 to Herdrich vacated. It is further ordered that the parties shall bear their own costs incurred before this court.

Given the directive of the United States Supreme Court, the decision of the district court holding that count III (breach of fiduciary duty) failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted is now

AFFIRMED.

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

ORDER

On August 18,1998, a divided panel held that Cynthia Herdrich had stated a cause of action, under ERISA, for breach of fiduciary duties. Herdrich v. Pegram, 154 F.3d 362 (1998), reversed by Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211, 120 S.Ct. 2143, 147 [481]*481L.Ed.2d 164 (2000).¹ However, the United States Supreme Court disagreed and reversed this courts decision, holding that mixed eligibility and treatment decisions made by a HMO, acting through its physicians, were not fiduciary acts within the meaning of ERISA. Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211, 120 S.Ct. 2143, 147 L.Ed.2d 164 (2000). Although the Supreme Court’s decision in this case clearly outlines the failure of Pegram’s complaint, there is still the matter of costs.

In the Appellees’ Circuit Rule 54 statement, they ask that this court reverse its earlier award of cost to Herdrich (in the amount of $433.26) and award them the costs they incurred in this court and the Supreme Court.² Given that the Supreme Court has already awarded the appellees costs in the amount of $3,455.32, we need not address this issue. However, there is still the matter of who should pay for the proceedings before this court. After careful consideration, we order this court’s previous award of $433.26 to Herdrich vacated. It is further ordered that the parties shall bear their own costs incurred before this court.

Given the directive of the United States Supreme Court, the decision of the district court holding that count III (breach of fiduciary duty) failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted is now

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 F. App'x 480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herdrich-v-pegram-ca7-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack