Close X
Attorney Spotlight

What is Shannon Wiley looking forward to at this year's Asembia Specialty Pharmacy Summit? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

Primary Care Providers Win Challenge of CMS Interpretation of Enhanced Payment Law

With the help and support of the Tennessee Medical Association, 21 Tennessee physicians of underserved communities joined together and retained Bass, Berry & Sims to file suit against the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to stop improper collection efforts. Our team, led by David King, was successful in halting efforts to recoup TennCare payments that were used legitimately to expand services in communities that needed them. Read more

Tennessee Medical Association & Bass, Berry & Sims

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Download the Healthcare Fraud & Abuse Review 2017, authored by Bass, Berry & Sims

The Healthcare Fraud & Abuse Review 2017 details all healthcare-related False Claims Act settlements from last year, organized by particular sectors of the healthcare industry. In addition to reviewing all healthcare fraud-related settlements, the Review includes updates on enforcement-related litigation involving the Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute, and looks at the continued implications from the government's focus on enforcement efforts involving individual actors in connection with civil and criminal healthcare fraud investigations.

Click here to download the Review.

Supreme Court Decision Raises Stakes for Summary Plan Descriptions


June 16, 2011
A recent United States Supreme Court decision expands the scope of remedies potentially available to plan participants harmed by inaccurate summary plan descriptions ("SPDs") and other informal plan communications.

In CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, the employer had converted its traditional defined benefit pension plan to a "cash balance" plan. In the course of the conversion, the employer distributed various materials to participants, including an SPD and a newsletter stating that the new cash balance plan would produce an "overall improvement in … retirement benefits" and that the company would not realize any cost savings from the conversion. In fact, these statements were inaccurate and, as applied to some participants, untrue. The communications also failed to describe a "wear away" period that would prevent some participants from accruing additional benefits for a period of time.

The Supreme Court was asked to decide what remedies were available to participants and whether benefits should be calculated as described in the informal communications, rather than under the actual plan document. The participants requested calculation as described in the communications (which had the potential to increase benefits) if they could show that "likely harm" resulted from the miscommunications. The Court rejected the request but noted that participants who could show "actual harm" from the miscommunications could seek "equitable" relief, if the miscommunication constituted intentional misrepresentation or other fiduciary misconduct actionable under Section 502(a)(3) of ERISA. The Court observed that the exact nature of equitable relief may vary from case to case.

The Amara ruling is somewhat of a surprise to many in the benefits community, given prior decisions from the Court interpreting Section 502(a)(3) very narrowly. Since the lower court decision being reviewed by the Supreme Court in Amara had not specifically addressed liability under Section 502(a)(3), some observers believe the portion of the Court’s opinion allowing possible liability under that section is non-binding "dicta." Even so, the Court has provided would-be plaintiffs with powerful ammunition, and the Department of Labor also has already used the Supreme Court decision to argue for greater responsibility on the part of fiduciaries. The decision could result in increased claims against plan fiduciaries under Section 502(a)(3), and employers would be well advised to review their participant communications (including, but not limited to, SPDs) for consistency with existing plan documents.

If you have questions regarding the information in this alert, please contact any of the attorneys in our Employee Benefits Practice Group.

Related Services


Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.