Opinion ID: 791097
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Daley I

Text: 12 Daley argues that the district court erred in holding that the Nebraska mental-health parity law is preempted by ERISA. 10 Because ERISA preemption is a question of federal law involving statutory interpretation, we review the district court's decision de novo. Ark. Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. St. Mary's Hosp., Inc., 947 F.2d 1341, 1344 (8th Cir.1991). 13 Before addressing Daley's argument that ERISA does not preempt the Nebraska mental-health parity law, we must explain the analytical framework of ERISA preemption. ERISA comprehensively regulates employee pension and welfare plans. Baxter v. Lynn, 886 F.2d 182, 184 (8th Cir.1989). To meet the goals of a comprehensive and pervasive Federal interest and the interests of uniformity with respect to interstate plans, Congress included an express preemption clause in ERISA for the displacement of State action in the field of private employee benefit programs. Wilson v. Zoellner, 114 F.3d 713, 715-16 (8th Cir.1997) (internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, ERISA broadly preempts any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan governed by ERISA. 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). 14 However, ERISA contains an exception to the general rule of preemption, which is referred to as the savings clause. Under the savings clause, a state law that regulates insurance is saved from ERISA preemption. 29 U.S.C. § 1144(b)(2)(A). 11 ERISA's deemer clause, in turn, exempt[s] self-funded ERISA plans from state laws that `regulat[e] insurance' within the meaning of the savings clause. FMC Corp. v. Holliday, 498 U.S. 52, 61, 111 S.Ct. 403, 112 L.Ed.2d 356 (1990). The effect of the deemer clause is that self-funded ERISA plans are exempt from state regulation insofar as that regulation `relate[s] to' the plans. Id. 12 15 Daley cites three cases in support of her argument against ERISA preemption of the Nebraska mental-health parity law: Express Scripts, Inc. v. Wenzel, 262 F.3d 829 (8th Cir.2001) (holding that Missouri statutes regulating some aspects of how Missouri HMOs provide prescription drugs through network pharmacies regulate insurance and, therefore, fall within ERISA's savings clause); Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran, 536 U.S. 355, 122 S.Ct. 2151, 153 L.Ed.2d 375 (2002) (holding that Illinois statute requiring HMOs to provide independent medical review of certain claim denials is saved from preemption because the statute regulates insurance within the meaning of ERISA's savings clause); and Miller, 538 U.S. 329, 123 S.Ct. 1471, 155 L.Ed.2d 468 (holding that two Kentucky any-willing-provider laws are saved from preemption because they regulate insurance within the meaning of ERISA's savings clause). Relying on these cases, Daley argues that the Nebraska mental-health parity law is saved from ERISA preemption. Ultimately, Daley's argument is fatally flawed because it ignores the significance of the deemer clause in cases where self-funded ERISA plans are concerned. See Prudential Ins. Co., 413 F.3d at ___, slip op. at 23 (The movants' argument here fails because it ignores the Application of the deemer clause to self-funded ERISA plans, a non-issue in Miller, but the controlling issue in this case with regard to the [plaintiff's self-funded ERISA] plan.). 16 Whether the Nebraska mental-health parity law is saved from preemption is not the determinative issue. Because the law relates to an ERISA employee benefit plan, ERISA's deemer clause exempts Marriott's self-funded Plan from application of Nebraska's mental-health parity law. See FMC Corp., 498 U.S. at 61, 111 S.Ct. 403. In addition, because of the deemer clause, the Nebraska mental-health parity law cannot regulate the Plan indirectly through Empire. See Prudential Ins. Co., at ___, slip op. at 23 (The Supreme Court has noted repeatedly that because of the deemer clause, statutes that indirectly regulate self-funded ERISA plans are not saved from preemption to the extent such statutes apply to self-funded plans.). 13 Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court in Daley I.