|
|
|
Word
|
Definition
|
|
|
|
Welfare Benefit Plan
|
Welfare Benefit Plan: The terms "employee welfare benefit plan" and "welfare plan" mean any plan, fund, or program established or maintained by an employer or by an employee organization, or by both, to the extent that such plan, fund, or program was established or is maintained for the purpose of providing for its participants or their beneficiaries, through the purchase of insurance or otherwise, (A) medical, surgical, or hospital care or benefits, or benefits in the event of sickness, accident, disability, death or unemployment, or vacation benefits, apprenticeship or other training programs, or day care centers, scholarship funds, or prepaid legal services, or (B) any benefit described in section 186(c) of this title [Title 29] (other than pensions on retirement or death, and insurance to provide such pensions).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule
|
Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule: As a general rule, determining whether a particular case arises under federal law turns on the " 'well-pleaded complaint' " rule. Under this rule, determining whether federal question jurisdiction exists, permitting a removal to federal court, must be determined from what appears from the plaintiffs statement of claims, "unaided by anything alleged in anticipation of avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose." Thus, the existence of a federal defense normally does not create statutory "arising under" jurisdiction and "a defendant may not [generally] remove a case to federal court unless the plaintiffs complaint establishes that the case 'arises under' federal law.
On the other hand, when a federal statute wholly displaces the state-law cause of action through complete pre-emption, the state claim can be removed. In other words, when the federal statute completely pre-empts the state-law cause of action, the plaintiffs claims, even if pleaded in terms of state law, are treated as if based upon federal law. Applying this exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that "any state-law cause of action that duplicates, supplements, or supplants the ERISA civil enforcement remedy conflicts with the clear congressional intent to make the ERISA remedy exclusive and is therefore pre-empted." AETNA Health, Inc. V. Davila (02-1845) 542 U.S. 200 (2004). (holding that ERISA's civil remedies provisions preempt the Texas Health Care Liability Act (THCLA), Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Aim. §§88.001-88.003 (2004 Supp. Pamphlet).
|