Mazi Liguney

Main Menu

  • Home
  • California payday
  • California car loans
  • California mortgages
  • California insurance
  • Capital

Mazi Liguney

Header Banner

Mazi Liguney

  • Home
  • California payday
  • California car loans
  • California mortgages
  • California insurance
  • Capital
California insurance
Home›California insurance›California County Rejects Retiree Health Plan Appeal – 9th Circ

California County Rejects Retiree Health Plan Appeal – 9th Circ

By Daniel Templeten
October 28, 2021
0
0


  • The court revived the requests in 2012, 2018

Orange County, Calif., Has not broken its contract with retired employees by reducing the amount of a monthly grant to cover the cost of their health insurance premiums, a court said on Thursday. American call.

In a 2-1 opinion, the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a ruling by a federal judge in Santa Ana, Calif., Who found no evidence the county ever promised, or even left hear, that the subsidies would never change.

Retirees said the promise was implied when the county and the workers’ union first accepted the grant in 1993 and that it was expressly included in annual agreements between 1994 and 2007.

Thursday’s ruling was the third time the 9th Circuit weighed in on the case, which Gaylan Harris first filed on behalf of thousands of Orange County retirees in 2009 – two years after the county and the union restructured the health benefits of retirees and cut subsidies by 50%.

Circuit Judge Johnnie Rawlinson on Thursday upheld Senior U.S. District Judge Andrew Guilford’s ruling in 2019 that there was no evidence of an express or implied contract to continue the monthly grant “in perpetuity.” She was joined by U.S. District Judge Morrison England of the Eastern District of California, sitting by designation.

Circuit Judge Danielle Forrest agreed with much of the majority’s decision, but reportedly referred the case for further investigation into the retiree theory that under California law the 1993 contained an implied and enforceable promise that the subsidy would always be calculated by the formula indicated.

Lawyers for the retirees and the county did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The case is Gaylan Harris, on behalf of himself and others in a similar situation, c. County of Orange, 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals No. 19-56387. For Harris: Michael Brown of Gordon Tilden Thomas Cordell For Orange County: Arthur Hartinger, Renne Public Law Group


Related posts:

  1. Wildfire victims lose bid to send PG&E insurance dispute to state court – Courthouse News Service
  2. Health Insurance Guys: New Kind of Health Insurance Explains 2021 US Rescue Law | Business
  3. CDC COVID-19 Vaccine Tracking Privacy Concerns
  4. DOL leadership, paycheck fairness and more
Tagshealth insurance

Categories

  • California car loans
  • California insurance
  • California mortgages
  • California payday
  • Capital

Recent Posts

  • California panel won’t disqualify law firm in pipe maker fight
  • Prison guard Richard Donovan charged with bribery and smuggling
  • How to overcome the initial cost of solar panels
  • Residents of this state could soon see $1,050 stimulus checks hit their bank accounts
  • California’s sweeping climate plan appeals to few

Archives

  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • November 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy