Eating-Disorder Class Actions Get Judge's Go-Ahead
Mary Pat Gallagher
New Jersey Law Journal
August 12, 2008
"In a ruling released last week, [Judge] Hochberg refused to dismiss the case or abstain from decision[.]"
"[B]ut she threw out a significant chunk of the litigation."
"The result was to knock out those plaintiffs' claims under the Mental Health Parity Law and the Consumer Fraud Act, along with common-law claims for breach of contract, breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and tortious interference with contract. They are left only with their claims under ERISA, which does not afford a jury trial and often requires review under an arbitrary and capricious standard.
"On the other hand, the plaintiffs insured under policies not subject to ERISA can go forward with most of their claims. It is not clear, however, whether they can assert a claim under the Mental Health Parity Law. Hochberg left undecided the novel question of whether there exists an implied private right of action under the 1999 law."
"Pending legislation, S-607/A-2077, would eliminate disparate treatment for nonbiologically based mental illness. A similar bill in the last legislative session passed the Senate and two Assembly committees but was never brought to a vote in the Assembly."
"Never brought to a vote" sums it up nicely, I think.
This also sums it up nicely: