Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Mondry v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company

557 F.3d 781 (2009)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...

Mondry v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

557 F.3d 781 (2009)

Facts

Sharon Mondry (plaintiff) and her son were enrolled in a health plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and administered by American Family Mutual Insurance Company (AF) (defendant). AF contracted with Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (CIGNA) to make coverage decisions. In July 2003, Mondry was informed that based on CIGNA’s guidelines, her claim for her son’s speech therapy was denied because it constituted educational or training services rather than restorative services. Mondry requested the production of the documents in which the guidelines were provided. AF and CIGNA denied the request. The decision to deny was affirmed by an internal appeals process. In October 2004, after multiple document requests, CIGNA provided the two documents it had cited: the Clinical Resource Tool for Speech Therapy (CRT) and the Benefit Interpretation Resource Tool for Speech Therapy (BIRT). Mondry pursued a second-level appeal for coverage. CIGNA concluded that Mondry’s claim had been improperly denied and reversed the denial without any explanation. Mondry was reimbursed for the speech therapy, except for the $303 out-of-pocket expense she had paid after discontinuing her participation in AF’s plan. Mondry filed an action in federal district court against AF and CIGNA for violating ERISA and breaching their fiduciary duty. Mondry also sought reimbursement for the $303. The district court granted AF summary judgment. Mondry appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Rovner, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 605,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 605,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 605,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 33,800 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership