Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 128

524us1$75M 02-18-99 19:35:22 PAGES OPINPGT

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

83

Opinion of the Court

ing the election is the moment of ﬁrst being covered after
the date of the election. See National Cos. Health Beneﬁt
Plan v. St. Joseph’s Hosp., Inc., 929 F. 2d 1558, 1570 (CA11
1991) (“[I]t is immaterial when the employee acquires other
group health coverage; the only relevant question is when,
after the election date, does that other coverage take effect.
In the case of an employee covered by preexisting group
health coverage, . . . the ﬁrst time after the election date
that the employee becomes covered by a group health plan
other than the employer’s plan is the moment after the elec-
tion date”). But that reading ignores the condition that the
beneﬁciary must “ﬁrst becom[e]” covered after election, rob-
bing the modiﬁer “ﬁrst” of any consequence, thereby equat-
ing “ﬁrst becomes . . . covered” with “remains covered.”
It
transforms the novelty of becoming covered for the ﬁrst time
into the continuity of remaining covered over time.

Moore argues, further, that even if our reading of the stat-
ute is more faithful to its plain language, Congress could not
have meant to give a qualiﬁed beneﬁciary something more
than the right to preserve the status quo as of the date of
the qualifying event.8 Moore points out that if the phrase
“ﬁrst becomes covered . . . after” the date of election does
not apply to any coverage predating election, then the bene-
ﬁciary is quite free to claim continuation coverage even if
he has obtained entirely new group coverage between the
qualifying event and the election; in that case, on our read-
ing, COBRA would not be preserving the circumstances as
of the date of the qualifying event.

8 Moore also argues that Congress could not have intended to render
COBRA eligible those individuals with pre-existing coverage under an-
other health plan at the time of election, because such individuals who in
fact elect COBRA coverage are typically high risk. As a result, Moore
contends, covering them under COBRA tends to increase an employer’s
overall cost of providing a group health plan, and may cause some employ-
ers to cease offering a group health plan entirely. This may or may not
be true.
If substantiated, the argument would be considered in constru-
ing the scope of a vague provision; § 1162(2)(D)(i), however, is not vague.