Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Alabama, 843 F.Supp. 1427, 1434 (M.D.Ala.1994) (a statute affecting not only the insurance industry, but also other non-insured health care plans and agreements failed the common sense test). The Court finds that the Any Willing Provider Statute fails the common sense test because it is not specifically directed towards the insurance industry, but, rather, it expressly applies to entities outside the insurance industry, such as employers and Taft-Hartley trusts. See La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 40:2202(3)(a)-(b) (West 1987); Hayden, 843 F.Supp. at 1434 (“[although [the statute at issue there] may have a substantial effect on the insurance industry, the law affects other health care plans and agreements even though they are not a part of an insurance contract”); cf. Stuart Circle, 995 F.2d at 504 (<HOLDING>). Because Louisiana’s Any Willing Provider 
 Holding statements: (A) holding analytically analogous statute failed the commonsense view where although the statute may have a substantial effect on the insurance industry the law affects other healthcare plans and agreements even though they are not part of an insurance agreement (B) holding that a probate courts jurisdiction is limited to that expressly conferred or which is necessarily implied from those expressly conferred (C) holding that section 624155 is not a statute which regulates the insurance industry because the statute does not meet the three prong test enunciated in union labor life ins co v pireno 458 us 119 129 102 sct 3002 73 led2d 647 1982 in so holding the court reasoned that although section 624155 is directed toward the insurance industry and applies only to the insurance industry the statute transfers or spreads no policyholder risk and the statute is not an integral part of the policy relationship between the insurer and the insured see also american intl group inc v siemens bldg techs inc 881 so2d 7 12 fladistctapp2004 holding that section 624155 is not a law  regulating insurance to which mccarranferguson might apply citing anschultz 850 f2d 1467 (D) holding that a federal statute 12 usc  92 which expressly permits national banks to sell insurance in small towns is a statute which specifically relates to the business of insurance and preempts a state statute which prohibits banks from selling insurance (E) holding that virginias statute was expressly limited to entities within the insurance industry
Output (English): holding analytically analogous statute failed the commonsense view where although the statute may have a substantial effect on the insurance industry the law affects other healthcare plans and agreements even though they are not part of an insurance agreement