Case Name: Bruce F. BOTSFORD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MONTANA, INC.; Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-02-10
Citations: 319 F.3d 1078
Docket Number: No. 01-36019
Parties: Bruce F. BOTSFORD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MONTANA, INC.; Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before TROTT, NELSON, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 319
Pages: 1078–1079

Head Matter:
Bruce F. BOTSFORD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MONTANA, INC.; Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 01-36019.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.
Filed Dec. 23, 2002.
Amended Feb. 10, 2003.
Anthony F. Shelley, Miller & Chevalier, Chartered, Washington, D.C., for the appellants.
Michael J. Lilly, Berg, Lilly & Tollefsen, P.C., Bozeman, Montana, for the appellee.
Before TROTT, NELSON, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
The Opinion filed December 23, 2002,, slip op. 1, is amended as follows:
At slip op. page 10, second paragraph, line 8, after the sentence "Thus, Congress wished to create a cost-efficient, comprehensive form of medical insurance for federal employees." add the following footnote:
As a result, FEHBA clearly "relates to the business of insurance," triggering the express statutory exception to the states' traditional right to regulate insurance under Section 2(b) of the McCarran-Ferguson Act. See 15 U.S.C. § 1012(b); see also Humana, Inc. v. Forsyth, 525 U.S. 299, 306, 119 S.Ct. 710, 142 L.Ed.2d 753 (1999) (noting that, under this provision, "when Congress enacts a law specifically relating to the business of insurance, that law ' controls").
With these amendments, the panel has voted unanimously to deny the petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc.
The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. RApp. P. 35.
The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED.