Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 123.0

524us1$75M 02-18-99 19:35:21 PAGES OPINPGT

78

GEISSAL v. MOORE MEDICAL CORP.

Opinion of the Court

The Magistrate Judge hearing the case 2 ﬁrst rejected
Moore’s arguments that Geissal lacked standing and that
Aetna was a necessary party under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 19(a). The Magistrate concluded that even if
Moore was correct that Geissal had no claim for compensa-
tory damages because Aetna paid all of the medical bills,
Geissal could seek statutory damages under 29 U. S. C.
§ 1132(a)(1).3 The Magistrate held that Aetna was not a
necessary party to the suit, since complete relief could be
granted between Moore and Geissal without joining Aetna,
a verdict in Geissal’s favor would not subject Moore to the
risk of inconsistent or double obligations, and Aetna’s joinder
was not necessary to determine primacy as between the
two plans.

The Magistrate denied summary judgment for Geissal,
however, and instead sua sponte granted partial summary
judgment on Counts I and II in favor of Moore, concluding
that an employee with coverage under another group health

2 Pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 636(c), the parties agreed to have a magistrate

judge conduct all proceedings in this case.

3 This subsection provides that a beneﬁciary may seek relief under 29
U. S. C. § 1132(c), which provides that a plan administrator who fails to
comply with a beneﬁciary’s request for plan information within 30 days of
the request is personally liable to that beneﬁciary in the amount of up to
$100 a day from the date of the failure.

Before us, Moore suggests that Geissal lacks standing to maintain this
suit. They assert that Aetna has paid all of the medical bills, and that
the only apparent difference between the Aetna and Moore policies was a
$350 difference in their respective deductibles, a difference far exceeded
by the premiums Geissal would owe for COBRA coverage if successful.
Despite Moore’s assertions to the contrary, however, nothing in the record
indicates one way or another whether Aetna has fully reimbursed Geissal
for James Geissal’s medical bills. Geissal’s counsel represented at oral
argument that at a minimum there are unpaid medical bills incurred on a
trip to the Greek Islands. Quite apart from this, we cannot tell from the
record whether Geissal may be entitled to recover from Moore even if
sometime later Aetna would have a claim against Geissal to recover the
insurance costs that it paid.