{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca3-25-1723-2026-06-24","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca3-25-1723-2026-06-24)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-11","fingerprint":"ewai:us:e0b409","proof":"sha256:0ba2490fa47c0e860e3861751ef364fbbade3f1d68e73d2798220d5974e305b6","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ca3-25-1723-2026-06-24","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109"],"kind":"front_matter"},{"title":"Summary judgment is warranted when, viewing the evidence","paragraphs":["para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241","para_242","para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267","para_268","para_269","para_270","para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280","para_281","para_282","para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296","para_297","para_298","para_299","para_300","para_301","para_302","para_303","para_304","para_305","para_306","para_307","para_308","para_309"],"kind":"summary"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"PRECEDENTIAL","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"No. 25-1723","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"JEFFREY M. AHN, MD,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"Appellant","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"COMPANY; JANE DOES 1-10;","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"ABC CORPORATIONS 1-10","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"On Appeal from the United States District Court","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"for the District of New Jersey","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"(D.C. No. 2:19-cv-07141)","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"District Judge: Honorable Evelyn Padin","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"March 24, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"Before: HARDIMAN, SCIRICA, and AMBRO, Circuit","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"Judges","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"(Filed: June 24, 2026 )","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"2","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_25","court_paragraph":2},{"text":"OPINION OF THE COURT","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"This appeal raises a question of first impression for this","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"Court: does the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"1974 (ERISA) preempt a healthcare provider’s defamation","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"claim based on allegedly false statements in explanation of","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"benefits (EOB) forms sent to beneficiaries? We hold that it","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"does.","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"I","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"Appellant Dr. Jeffrey M. Ahn is an otolaryngologist","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"licensed to practice medicine in New Jersey and New York.","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"Appellee Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company is a","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"subsidiary of the Cigna Group. Though Dr. Ahn is not part of","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"Cigna’s provider network, some of his patients are insured by","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"Cigna. And when Dr. Ahn treats them, he submits claims to","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"Cigna. All of Cigna’s health insurance plans are governed by","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"ERISA.1","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"Dr. Ahn alleged that Cigna denied his claims about 50","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"times. In doing so, Cigna issued forms explaining why the","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"claims were denied. Many of these forms stated that the claims","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"were denied because Cigna did not pay for services performed","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"1 In the District Court, Dr. Ahn “disagree[d]” that the plans","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"were governed by ERISA. See App. 114. The Court found","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"otherwise, and Dr. Ahn does not challenge that determination","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"on appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"3","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"by unlicensed providers—i.e., that Dr. Ahn was not licensed to","paragraph_id":"para_53","court_paragraph":3},{"text":"practice medicine. After he appealed the denials, Cigna","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"allowed them in whole, in part, or denied them for a reason","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"unrelated to his licensed status.","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"Dr. Ahn filed a three-count complaint in New Jersey","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"Superior Court, asserting claims for defamation, defamation","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"per se, and tortious interference. After Cigna removed the case","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"to federal court, it moved to dismiss, or in the alternative for","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"summary judgment, citing ERISA preemption and the statute","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"of limitations. See Ahn v. Cigna Health & Life Ins. Co., 2019","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"WL 5304628, at *4–5 (D.N.J. Oct. 21, 2019). The District","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"Court deferred ruling on the ERISA preemption defense at that","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"time because it could not “determine from the Complaint","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"which of the . . . allegedly defamatory EOBs relate to Cigna’s","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"administration of plans covered by ERISA.” Id. at *4.","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"Following discovery, Cigna moved for summary","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"judgment on all of Dr. Ahn’s claims, again citing ERISA","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"preemption. In response, Dr. Ahn withdrew his defamation and","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"tortious interference claims, so only his defamation per se","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"claim remained.","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"The District Court granted Cigna’s motion. The Court","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"first addressed whether ERISA governed the plans. Cigna","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"submitted documents showing that the plans were “governed","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"by ERISA, include information required by ERISA (including","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"the plan sponsor’s Employer Identification Number), and","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"explain beneficiaries’ rights under ERISA (including the right","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"to bring an action under ERISA § 502(a), 29 U.S.C.","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"§ 1132(a)).” Ahn v. Cigna Health & Life Ins. Co., 2025 WL","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"830217, at *4 (D.N.J. Mar. 17, 2025). Dr. Ahn offered no","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"record evidence to the contrary. So with one exception not","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"relevant here, the Court found that the plans were governed by","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"4","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"ERISA because they were “established or maintained by an","paragraph_id":"para_85","court_paragraph":4},{"text":"employer for the purpose of providing . . . benefits.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"The District Court then held that Dr. Ahn’s defamation","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"per se claim was preempted by ERISA. As the Court explained,","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"Dr. Ahn’s “claims arise from a central matter of plan","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"administration” because they were “premised on statements","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"made in EOBs sent to beneficiaries of ERISA plans” and","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"because “[t]hose EOBs were sent pursuant to Cigna’s","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"obligations under ERISA to provide written notice to patients","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"whose claims were denied, including the specific reasons for","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"the denial.” Id. at *6.","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"Dr. Ahn timely appealed.","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"II2","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"Section 514(a) of ERISA preempts “any and all State","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"employee benefit plan” governed by the statute. 29 U.S.C.","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"§ 1144(a) (emphasis added). According to the language of","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"ERISA, “State law” includes “all laws, decisions, rules,","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"regulations, or other State action having the effect of law, of","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"any State.” Id. § 1144(c)(1). Because state common-law claims","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"2 The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"§ 1291. We review the District Court’s summary judgment de","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"novo, applying the same standard it applied. See Kelly v.","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"Borough of Carlisle, 622 F.3d 248, 253 (3d Cir. 2010).","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"Summary judgment is warranted when, viewing the evidence","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"in the light most favorable to the non-movant, there are no","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"genuine issues “as to any material fact and the movant is","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"5","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"fall within this broad definition, they are often preempted by","paragraph_id":"para_115","court_paragraph":5},{"text":"ERISA. See, e.g., Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"133, 140 (1990); Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41,","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"48 (1987). The term “relate to” in § 514(a) also is “deliberately","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"expansive.” Ingersoll-Rand, 498 U.S. at 138 (citation omitted);","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"see also Pilot Life, 481 U.S. at 45–46 (ERISA’s “express pre-","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"emption provisions” are “designed to ‘establish pension plan","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"regulation as exclusively a federal concern.’” (citation","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"omitted)). This does not mean that § 514(a)’s broad scope","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"should “extend to the furthest stretch of its indeterminacy”;","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"otherwise, “for all practical purposes pre-emption would never","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"run its course.” New York State Conf. of Blue Cross & Blue","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645, 655 (1995).","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"So preemption does not apply if the state claim “has only a","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"‘tenuous, remote, or peripheral’ connection with covered","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"plans, as is the case with many laws of general applicability.”","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"District of Columbia v. Greater Wash. Bd. of Trade, 506 U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"125, 130 n.1 (1992) (citation omitted).","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"“Implementing these principles,” the Supreme Court","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"“has described two categories of state laws that ERISA pre-","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"empts.” Gobeille v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 577 U.S. 312, 319","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"(2016). “First, ERISA pre-empts a state law if it has a","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"‘reference’ to ERISA plans,” that is, where it “acts","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"immediately and exclusively upon ERISA plans or . . . where","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"the existence of ERISA plans is essential to the law’s","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"operation.” Id. at 319–20 (citations omitted). Second, “ERISA","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"pre-empts a state law that has an impermissible ‘connection","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"with’ ERISA plans.” Id. at 320 (citation omitted). A state law","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"can have an impermissible “connection with” an ERISA plan","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"if it “governs . . . a central matter of plan administration,” or","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"“interferes with nationally uniform plan administration.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"(citation omitted).","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"6","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"Cigna contends that Dr. Ahn’s per se defamation claim","paragraph_id":"para_148","court_paragraph":6},{"text":"falls in the second category of state laws that are preempted by","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"ERISA: laws that govern, or interfere with the uniformity of,","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"plan administration and so have an impermissible “connection","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"with” ERISA plans. We agree.","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"We have observed that “[t]he ‘connection with’","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"component of this test . . . supplies scarcely more content than","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"the ‘relate to’ formulation.” Nat’l Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Iola, 700","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"F.3d 65, 83–84 (3d Cir. 2012). So we must “also look to ‘the","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"objectives of the ERISA statute as a guide to the scope of the","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"state law that Congress understood would survive,’ as well as","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"to the nature of the effect of the state law on ERISA plans.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"at 84 (quoting Cal. Div. of Lab. Standards Enf’t v. Dillingham","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"Constr., N.A., Inc., 519 U.S. 316, 325 (1997)); accord","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"Gobeille, 577 U.S. at 320. Those considerations lead us to","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"conclude that Dr. Ahn’s defamation per se claim is preempted","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"by ERISA. See 29 U.S.C. § 1001(a)–(b) (Relevant statutory","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"objectives include establishing uniform national safeguards","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"“with respect to the establishment, operation, and","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"administration of [employee benefit] plans” and “establishing","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"standards of conduct, responsibility, and obligation for","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"fiduciaries of employee benefit plans.”).","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"A","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"The communication of claim adjudications to plan","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"participants and beneficiaries is a “central matter of plan","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"administration.” Egelhoff v. Egelhoff ex rel. Breiner, 532 U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"141, 148 (2001). In Egelhoff, the Supreme Court held that","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"ERISA preempted a Washington statute that, upon divorce,","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"automatically revoked the designation of a spouse as the","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"beneficiary of the proceeds of an employer-sponsored life","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"insurance policy. Id. at 144–46. The statute directed plan","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"7","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"administrators to “pay benefits to the beneficiaries chosen by","paragraph_id":"para_180","court_paragraph":7},{"text":"state law, rather than to those identified in the plan documents.”","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"Id. at 147. The Court reasoned that the statute “r[an] counter to","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"ERISA’s commands that a plan shall ‘specify the basis on","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"which payments are made to and from the plan’ . . . and that","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"the fiduciary shall administer the plan ‘in accordance with the","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"documents and instruments governing the plan,’ making","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"payments to a ‘beneficiary’ who is ‘designated by a participant,","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"or by the terms of the plan.’” Id. (quoting 29 U.S.C.","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"§§ 1102(b)(4), 1104(a)(1)(D), 1002(8)). Because the","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"Washington statute “govern[ed] the payment of benefits, a","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"central matter of plan administration,” the Court held that it","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"was preempted. Id. at 148–50.","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"So too here. Cigna’s explanation of its benefits decision","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"is “central” to the administration of an ERISA plan. ERISA","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"requires plans to “provide adequate notice in writing to any","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"participant or beneficiary whose claim for benefits under the","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"plan has been denied, setting forth the specific reasons for such","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"denial, written in a manner calculated to be understood by the","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"participant.” 29 U.S.C. § 1133(1). Cigna discharges this duty","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"by issuing the explanation of benefits form. So statements","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"therein about the reasons for the denial of a claim are","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"inseparable from Cigna’s duty to provide a written explanation","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"of claim denials under ERISA. And any state-law claims","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"challenging the content of such statements would","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"impermissibly allow state law to regulate matters squarely","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"within ERISA’s “heartland.” Iola, 700 F.3d at 84; see also","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"Pilot Life, 481 U.S. at 43, 48 (common-law claims alleging","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"“improper processing of a claim for benefits under an","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"employee benefit plan[] undoubtedly meet the criteria for pre-","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"emption under § 514(a)”). As the District Court observed, “the","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"fact that Cigna sent the allegedly defamatory EOBs pursuant","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"8","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"to their obligations under ERISA shows how Dr. Ahn’s claims","paragraph_id":"para_213","court_paragraph":8},{"text":"relate to ERISA.” Ahn, 2025 WL 830217, at *6.","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"has adopted similar reasoning. See Mayeaux v. La. Health Serv.","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"& Indem. Co., 376 F.3d 420 (5th Cir. 2004). In Mayeaux, the","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"court affirmed an order dismissing a physician’s tort claims","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"(including defamation) which challenged the insurance","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"carrier’s “handling, review, and disposition of a request for","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"coverage.” Id. at 432. As the court explained, allowing medical","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"practitioners to bring defamation claims when an ERISA plan","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"administrator decides not to cover a treatment “would","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"undoubtedly jeopardize the relationships among the traditional","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"ERISA entities, of which the treating physician is not one.","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"These are the sort of claims that go to the very heart of the","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"ERISA administration process.” Id. at 433. As in Mayeaux, Dr.","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"Ahn sues over the “handling, review, and disposition of a","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"request for coverage,” id. at 432, and his claim is so intertwined","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"with his patients’ ERISA plans that it “relates to” those plans,","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"see Ingersoll-Rand, 498 U.S. at 140 (citation omitted). So","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"ERISA preempts Dr. Ahn’s defamation per se claim.","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"Dr. Ahn attempts to distinguish Mayeaux by asserting","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"that “accusing a medical professional of being ‘unlicensed’","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"does nothing to establish standards of conduct, responsibility","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"and obligation for fiduciaries of employee benefit plans.” Ahn","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"Br. 12. But the relevant inquiry is not whether defaming","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"providers is central to an administrator’s fiduciary duties. It is","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"not. The right question to ask is whether communicating","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"benefits determinations to subscribers and beneficiaries is a","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"central matter of plan administration. It is.","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"9","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"B","paragraph_id":"para_243","court_paragraph":9},{"text":"Preemption applies to this case for a second,","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"independent reason: Dr. Ahn’s defamation per se claim","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"“interferes with nationally uniform plan administration.”","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"Egelhoff, 532 U.S. at 148. “One of the principal goals of","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"ERISA is to enable employers ‘to establish a uniform","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"administrative scheme, which provides a set of standard","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"procedures to guide processing of claims and disbursement of","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"benefits.’” Id. (quoting Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"U.S. 1, 9 (1987)). “Uniformity is impossible, however, if plans","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"are subject to different legal obligations in different States.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"ERISA provides a civil enforcement “mechanism for","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"claims by beneficiaries or plan participants to question or","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"challenge the provision or amount of benefits.” Kollman v.","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"Hewitt Assoc., LLC, 487 F.3d 139, 150 (3d Cir. 2007). So there","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"is no need to subject explanation of benefits forms to state tort","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"claims like defamation. Doing so would be impractical as well.","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"When determining “the manner” in which claims decisions are","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"“written,” see 29 U.S.C. § 1133(1), plan administrators and","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"fiduciaries would have to consider not only ERISA’s","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"requirements, but also the common law of each state in which","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"participants and beneficiaries are located or seek services. And","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"“[r]equiring ERISA administrators to master the relevant laws","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"of 50 States and contend with litigation would undermine the","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"congressional goal of ‘minimiz[ing] the administrative and","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"financial burden[s]’ on plan administrators—burdens","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"ultimately borne by the beneficiaries.” Gobeille, 577 U.S. at","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"321 (quoting Egelhoff, 532 U.S. at 149–50). We therefore hold","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"that ERISA preempts Dr. Ahn’s defamation per se claim","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"because allowing state defamation laws to regulate the content","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"of EOBs would undermine uniformity in plan administration.","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"10","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"C","paragraph_id":"para_275","court_paragraph":10},{"text":"In his effort to upend the District Court’s decision, Dr.","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"Ahn offers a mistaken understanding of the governing caselaw.","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"On his view, a claim that neither seeks benefits under an","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"ERISA plan nor requires more than a cursory examination of","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"an ERISA plan is not preempted. See Ahn Br. 12–15 (citing","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"Plastic Surgery Ctr., P.A. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 967 F.3d 218","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"(3d Cir. 2020)). But Plastic Surgery applied the same standards","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"we apply today. 967 F.3d at 230–35. He also cites Pascack","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"Valley Hosp., Inc. v. Loc. 464A UFCW Welfare","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"Reimbursement Plan, 388 F.3d 393 (3d Cir. 2004), but that","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"case involved a different ERISA preemption provision than","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"this one. Id. at 395; see also In re U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 193","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"F.3d 151, 160 (3d Cir. 1999) (explaining the difference","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"between complete preemption under ERISA § 502(a) and","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"express preemption under ERISA § 514(a)). Finally, Dr. Ahn","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"cites cases supporting the proposition that a provider can bring","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"a claim under ERISA § 502(a) if he has received an assignment","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"from a beneficiary. But there has been no such assignment","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"here. And even had one been made, it would bear only on a","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"claim brought pursuant to ERISA’s civil remedies provision—","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"a claim that Dr. Ahn concedes he has not asserted here.","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"***","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"ERISA broadly preempts state-law claims. The","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"explanation of benefits forms at issue in this appeal fall well","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"within the scope ERISA preemption. We will therefore affirm","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"the District Court’s summary judgment.","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"Nicholas A. Vytell","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"11","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"REPPERT OATES & VYTELL","paragraph_id":"para_304","court_paragraph":11},{"text":"Counsel for Appellant","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"Adam N. Saravay","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"Scott M. Weingart","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"MCCARTER & ENGLISH","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"Counsel for Appellee","paragraph_id":"para_309"}],"word_count":2514,"cites":["498 U.S.\n133","481 U.S. 41","514 U.S. 645","506 U.S.\n125","577 U.S. 312","519 U.S. 316","532 U.S.\n141","482\nU.S. 1","622 F.3d 248","700\nF.3d 65","376 F.3d 420","487 F.3d 139","967 F.3d 218","388 F.3d 393","193\nF.3d 151"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"697776244a998820f6876a63782c147d2ed25da033869b29af1453376e48c5fd","source_url":"https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/251723p.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-01T05:29:07.982+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca3-25-1723-2026-06-24","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca3-25-1723-2026-06-24","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca3-25-1723-2026-06-24","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca3-25-1723-2026-06-24","verification":{"stored_sha256":"697776244a998820f6876a63782c147d2ed25da033869b29af1453376e48c5fd","recomputed_sha256":"697776244a998820f6876a63782c147d2ed25da033869b29af1453376e48c5fd","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-11T07:33:00.643Z"}},"hash":"sha256:0ba2490fa47c0e860e3861751ef364fbbade3f1d68e73d2798220d5974e305b6","version":"legal-2026-10-11","expires":"2026-10-12T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-11+legal-2026-10-11+2026-10-11T07:22:24","content_hash":"sha256:0ba2490fa47c0e860e3861751ef364fbbade3f1d68e73d2798220d5974e305b6","revalidate_after":"2026-10-11T08:33:00.789Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca3-25-1723-2026-06-24","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca3-25-1723-2026-06-24"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca3-25-1723-2026-06-24"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca3-25-1723-2026-06-24"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ca3-25-1723-2026-06-24","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-29fe3b3a2026712b9553c5c5211df582","response_hash":"sha256:0ba2490fa47c0e860e3861751ef364fbbade3f1d68e73d2798220d5974e305b6"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T23:17:45.734Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aca3-25-1723-2026-06-24&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":12578}}