The case concerns whether a health insurance plan offered through St. John Medical Center qualifies as an ERISA-governed welfare benefit plan or instead constitutes an exempt "church plan" under 29 U.S.C. § 1002(33). Plaintiff sued in Oklahoma state court alleging bad faith breach of the insurance contract and moved to remand after the defendant removed the case to federal court on the basis of ERISA preemption. The court denied the motion to remand without prejudice, finding that the plan has been administered in accordance with ERISA requirements since 1975 and that the sponsoring religious order does not exercise sufficient ongoing control to satisfy the church-plan exemption, but it permitted the plaintiff to conduct limited discovery on governance and control issues before filing a second remand motion by June 13, 2011.
The case concerned a class action brought by the daughter and estate administrator of a deceased Medicaid recipient against Unified Life Insurance Company, alleging that a dental insurance policy sold directly to nursing home residents violated Oklahoma Administrative Code provisions governing Medicaid-covered services. The plaintiff claimed the policy was illegal and void because it was not purchased by the nursing facility from its daily rate, featured co-pays and caps, and duplicated services already provided free under Medicaid, supporting claims for unjust enrichment, conversion, and unfair practices under the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act. Unified moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing lack of a private right of action under the regulations, receipt of the bargained-for performance, improper conversion claim for money, and exemption from the OCPA. The court applied the Twombly plausibility standard, rejected the private-right-of-action defense, and analyzed whether the claims could proceed based on the alleged regulatory violations and the nature of the payments made.
This case involves Rick Bjorklund's termination as President and CEO of the Tulsa County Fairgrounds by the trustees of the Tulsa County Public Facilities Authority after disputes over handling rent payments and inspections for the Big Splash Water Park tenant. Bjorklund claimed he received an instruction to keep issues "off the radar," later disclosed details to the media, and was fired following public accusations that he lied about the events and his actions. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on claims including deprivation of a liberty interest without due process, focusing on the need for a name-clearing hearing and whether the plaintiff adequately requested one prior to suit under applicable precedents. The analysis examined the factual timeline of meetings, media articles, executive sessions, and the trustees' unanimous termination vote, while applying due process standards for public employees.
The case involved a former employee's claim under ERISA that the company administering its 401(k) plan breached fiduciary duties when her investment direction form was not forwarded to the plan trustee, resulting in her account being placed in a default fund and suffering approximately $100,000 in losses. The plaintiff had completed forms electing investment in a stable value fund and delivered them to a company manager designated to collect such documents, but the enrollment form was filed internally rather than transmitted. The court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff against the company on the breach of fiduciary duty claim, finding that the company had a duty to ensure proper handling and forwarding of participant investment instructions as part of its fiduciary responsibilities. It dismissed claims against individual officers and the plan itself, holding that only the company as plan administrator owed and breached the duty in this instance.
Marilyn Barnes, a long-time employee at Occidental Petroleum Corporation, was terminated after a recorded conversation in which she made derogatory and racially charged remarks about a colleague was left on the colleague's voicemail and reported to management. Barnes sued the company alleging age discrimination under the ADEA, race and association discrimination under Title VII, and related state-law claims. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that Barnes failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or show that the company's stated reason for termination—her inappropriate comments—was pretextual. The decision rested on the absence of evidence that age, race, or any other protected characteristic played a role in the termination, which occurred immediately after the company's investigation of the incident.
This case is a qui tam action under the False Claims Act in which former employees alleged that AHS Tulsa Regional Medical Center submitted false Medicaid claims for inpatient psychiatric services provided to minors in its behavioral health unit from 2003 to 2005. The relators claimed that various practices, including the use of unlicensed staff and incomplete care plans, violated federal and state "active treatment" regulations. The court denied the hospital's motion for summary judgment, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether false claims were submitted. The core reasoning was that the relevant regulations constituted conditions of payment rather than mere conditions of participation, such that violations could support FCA liability if they affected the government's payment decisions.