Weaver v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America

Filing 67

ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the Court finds that (1) the plaintiff does not have an adequate remedy against the defendant hospital under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B); (2) if the Plaintiff's allegati ons are true, the Hospital acted as an ERISA fiduciary in its dealings with her; and (3) if the Plaintiff proves her version of facts at trial, the plaintiff may recover damages under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3), pursuant to Krohn v. Huron Memorial H ospital, 173 F.3d 542, (6th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the defendant's motion 59 is hereby DENIED. This matter remains scheduled for trial on December 6, 2011. However, this Court is of the opinion that the order entered herein, though interloc utory in nature, involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. 28 U.S.C.A. § ; 1292(b). If a prompt application for permission to appeal is made to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, as provided in § 1292(b), this Court will entertain a motion to stay these proceedings pending resolution of the application to appeal and, if applicable, the resolution of such appeal. Id. It is so ORDERED. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas Wiseman on 10/12/11. (tmw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 
NASHVILLE DIVISION 

BARBARA WEAVER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY 
OF AMERICA, and 
HENDERSONVILLE HOSPITAL CORP., d/b/a 
HENDERSONVILLE MEDICAL CENTER, 

Defendants. 

) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
)  Civil Action No. 3:10‐cv‐438 
) 
)  Judge Thomas A. Wiseman, Jr. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 

ORDER 

Before  the  Court  is  defendant  Henderson  Hospital  Corp.’s  Motion  for  Judgment  as  a 

Matter  of  Law  (ECF  No.  59).    For  the  reasons  set  forth  in  the  accompanying  Memorandum 
Opinion,  the  Court  finds  that  (1)  the  plaintiff  does  not  have  an  adequate  remedy  against  the 
defendant hospital under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B); (2) if the Plaintiff’s allegations are true, the 
Hospital acted as an ERISA fiduciary in its dealings with her; and (3) if the Plaintiff proves her 
version  of  facts  at  trial,  the  plaintiff  may  recover  damages  under  29  U.S.C.  §  1132(a)(3), 
pursuant to Krohn v. Huron Memorial Hospital, 173 F.3d 542, (6th Cir. 1999).  Accordingly, the 
defendant’s motion (ECF No. 59) is hereby DENIED. 

This matter remains scheduled for trial on December 6, 2011.  However, this Court is of 

the opinion that the order entered herein, though interlocutory in nature, involves a controlling 
question  of  law  as  to  which  there  is  substantial  ground  for  difference  of  opinion  and  that  an 

2 

immediate  appeal  from  the  order  may  materially  advance  the  ultimate  termination  of  the 
litigation.  28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(b).  If a prompt application for permission to appeal is made to 
the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, as provided in § 1292(b), this Court will 
entertain  a  motion  to  stay  these  proceedings  pending  resolution  of  the  application  to  appeal 
and, if applicable, the resolution of such appeal.  Id. 

It is so ORDERED. 

Thomas A. Wiseman, Jr. 
Senior U.S. District Judge