A Reply to Wiggins and Reicher,: Erisa Preemption of Connecticut Statutes Providing for Continuation of Health Care Coverage
| Pages | 167 |
| Publication year | 2021 |
65 CBJ 167. A Reply to Wiggins and Reicher,: ERISA Preemption of Connecticut Statutes Providing For Continuation of Health Care Coverage
As in other law reviews, the articles which appear in the Connecticut BAR JOURNAL generally serve two purposes: to inform their readers and to advocate a certain legal position. However, articles which neglect to cite, except in a passing footnote, court decisions running counter to the position advocated do a disservice to those readers.
In my opinion, ERISA Preemption of Connecticut Statutes Providing for the Continuation of Health Care Coverage (fn1) is one of those articles because it fails to discuss how the holding of an important and recent federal court decision contradicts its thesis that the provisions of Section 31-284b (fn2) of the CONNECTICUT GENERAL STATUTES are preempted by the Employees Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).(fn3) The article's mistakes begin on page 205. There, the case of R. R. Donnelley and Sons v. Prevost (fn4) is cited only in a footnote, despite the fact that, along with its companion case, O & G Industries v. Arcudi, (fn5) it is the only case which analyzes whether the provisions of Section 31-284b are preempted by ERISA.
More egregiously, in the footnote itself, the article omits the fact that, in those cases cited above, the plaintiff-employers' challenges to Section 31-284b on the grounds of preemption failed before judge Peter C. Dorsey. That Judge Dorsey's decision was recently affirmed by the Second Circuit does little to inspire confidence in the soundness of the article's legal arguments.
Not surprisingly, the article's failure to discuss controlling precedent contrary to its position is due to a failure to approach properly the problem of ERISA preemption as it relates to statutes which apply solely to recipients of workers' compensation or other
disability benefits. By virtue of the exceptions established in Section 4(b) (3) of ERISA, (fn6) such statutes, of which Section 31-284b must now be included, are exempt from the normal preemptive effect which Section 514(a) of ERISA has on other laws regulating employee benefit plans.
The article attempts to bypass the effects of this statutory exemption by applying the...
To continue reading
Request your trial