Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 124

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

Cite as: 524 U. S. 74 (1998)

79

Opinion of the Court

plan as of the date he elects COBRA continuation coverage
is ineligible for COBRA coverage under § 1162(2)(D)(i), and
that James Geissal presented insufﬁcient evidence of detri-
mental reliance on Moore’s representation that he was enti-
tled to beneﬁts under COBRA. The Magistrate also found
that there was no signiﬁcant difference between the terms
of coverage under Aetna’s plan and Moore’s; they differed
only in the amount of their respective deductibles, and there
was no evidence that Aetna’s plan excluded or limited cover-
age for James Geissal’s condition.

The Magistrate then granted Geissal’s unopposed motion
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) for the entry of
ﬁnal judgment on Counts I and II, and so enabled Geissal
to seek immediate review of the Magistrate’s decision. The
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit afﬁrmed, 114 F. 3d
1458 (1997), and we granted certiorari, 522 U. S. 1086 (1998),
to resolve a conﬂict among the Circuits on whether an em-
ployer may deny COBRA continuation coverage under its
health plan to an otherwise eligible beneﬁciary covered
under another group health plan at the time he elects cover-
age under COBRA.4

II
A

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1985, Pub. L. 99–272, 100 Stat. 82, 222–237, amended the Em-
ployee Retirement Income Security Act, among other stat-

4 Compare Lutheran Hosp., Inc. v. Business Men’s Assurance Co., 51
F. 3d 1308 (CA7 1995) (an employer may not cease providing COBRA con-
tinuation coverage under its plan merely because its former employee has
pre-existing coverage under another group health plan), and Oakley v.
City of Longmont, 890 F. 2d 1128 (CA10 1989) (same), cert. denied, 494
U. S. 1082 (1990), with National Cos. Health Beneﬁt Plan v. St. Joseph’s
Hosp., Inc., 929 F. 2d 1558 (CA11 1991) (an employer may suspend the
COBRA continuation coverage of a former employee who had pre-existing
coverage under another group health plan), and Brock v. Primedica, Inc.,
904 F. 2d 295 (CA5 1990) (same).