From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...
Salley v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
966 F.2d 1011 (5th Cir. 1992)
Danielle Salley (plaintiff) was the daughter of Jack Salley (plaintiff). Jack was retired from E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Company (Dupont) (defendant). The plaintiffs received medical benefits under Dupont’s Hospital Medical-Surgical Coverage Policy (the Policy), which Dupont had established pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. The Policy only covered expenses deemed medically necessary. Preferred Health Care (Preferred) managed Dupont’s cases, but Dupont retained discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits. Due to emotional disabilities, Danielle was admitted to the hospital under the care of Dr. Gordon Blundell, a psychiatrist. After showing improvement, Danielle was released. However, Danielle quickly relapsed and was again admitted to the hospital. After her release, Danielle again relapsed and was admitted to the hospital for a third time. The Policy covered the first two hospitalizations and initially covered the third. Dr. Blundell was concerned about Danielle’s repeated admissions and determined that, although Danielle had dramatically improved and become stable, Danielle should not be released until a suitable treatment plan was identified. Dr. Blundell discussed his opinion with Dr. Satwant Ahluwalia, a Preferred psychiatrist. Dr. Ahluwalia ultimately determined that continued in-patient hospitalization was not medically necessary. Dupont terminated Danielle’s benefits. Dr. Ahluwalia never examined Danielle or reviewed Danielle’s medical records from the second and third hospitalizations. The plaintiffs sued Dupont to recover benefits from the date that Dupont terminated Danielle’s benefits to the date that Danielle was discharged. The district court found that Dupont had abused its discretion by terminating Danielle’s benefits. Dupont appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Williams, J.)
What to do next…
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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
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. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 218,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.