Gilbride v. Highmark Blue Shield of PA et al

Filing 18

ORDER entered by Judge Michael P McCuskey on 12/2/13. The Report and Recommendation 16 is accepted by this court. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 10 is DENIED. Plaintiff is allowed 14 days to file an amended complaint. This case is referred to Judge Bernthal for further proceedings. See written Order. Amended pleadings deadline is scheduled for 12/16/13. (TC, ilcd) (Main Document 18 replaced on 12/2/2013 with corrected caption) (TC, ilcd).

E-FILED

Monday, 02 December, 2013 03:56:31 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
URBANA DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
LISA GILBRIDE,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
Case No. 13-CV-2047
HIGHMARK BLUE SHIELD OF PA,
)
NANCI HOLT, and VESUVIUS,
)
)
Defendant.
)
ORDER

On November 7, 2013, Magistrate Judge David G. Bernthal filed a Report and
Recommendation (#16) in the above cause. On November 21, 2013, Defendants, Highmark
Blue Shield of PA, Nanci Holt, and Vesuvius, filed their Objection to Report and
Recommendation (#17). Following this court’s careful de novo review of Judge Bernthal’s
reasoning and Defendants’ Objection, this court agrees with Judge Bernthal’s
recommendation that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (#10) be DENIED. This court notes
that Defendants accepted Judge Bernthal’s invitation to support their argument that ERISA
preempts Plaintiff’s claims of negligence against Holt and vicarious liability against
Vesuvius. This court does not need to decide that question at this stage of the proceedings,
however. This court agrees with Judge Bernthal’s thorough and well-supported analysis and
concludes that dismissal of Plaintiff’s ERISA claim against Highmark, and her state law
claims against Holt and Vesuvius (if these claims are determined to be preempted by
ERISA), for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is premature at the pleading stage.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
(1) The Report and Recommendation (#16) is accepted by this court.
(2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (#10) is DENIED.
(3) Plaintiff is allowed fourteen (14) days to file an amended complaint for the sake
of clarity, but is not required to do so.
(4) This case is referred to Judge Bernthal for further proceedings.
ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 2013.
s/MICHAEL P. McCUSKEY
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

2