De Buono v. NYSA-ILA Medical and Clinical Services Fund, 520 U.S. 806 (1997)

Page:   Index   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

806

OCTOBER TERM, 1996

Syllabus

De BUONO, NEW YORK COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH, et al. v. NYSA-ILA MEDICAL AND CLINICAL SERVICES FUND, by its trustees, BOWERS, et al.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit

No. 95-1594. Argued February 24, 1997—Decided June 2, 1997

New York's Health Facility Assessment (HFA) imposes a tax on gross receipts for patient services at, inter alia, diagnostic and treatment centers. The NYSA-ILA Medical and Clinical Services Fund (Fund), which administers a plan subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), owns and operates New York treatment centers for longshore workers, retirees, and their dependents. Respondents, the Fund's trustees, discontinued paying the tax and filed this action to enjoin petitioner state officials from making future assessments and to obtain a refund, alleging that the HFA is a state law that "relates to" the Fund within the meaning of § 514(a) of ERISA, and is therefore pre-empted as applied to hospitals run by ERISA plans. The District Court concluded that the HFA is not pre-empted because it is a tax of general application having only an incidental impact on benefit plans. The Second Circuit reversed, reasoning that the HFA relates to the Fund by reducing the amount of Fund assets that would otherwise be available to provide plan members with benefits, and could cause the plan to limit its benefits or to charge plan members higher fees. On remand from this Court in light of New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U. S. 645—in which this Court held that ERISA did not pre-empt a New York statute requiring hospitals to collect surcharges from patients covered by a commercial insurer but not from patients insured by a Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan—the Second Circuit reinstated its judgment, distinguishing Travelers on the ground that the statute there at issue had only an indirect economic influence on the decisions of ERISA plan administrators, whereas the HFA depletes the Fund's assets directly, and thus has an immediate impact on an ERISA plan's operations.

Held: Section 514(a) does not preclude New York from imposing a gross receipts tax on ERISA funded medical centers. Pp. 812-816. (a) When the Second Circuit initially found the HFA pre-empted, it relied substantially on an expansive and literal interpretation of the

Page:   Index   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007