Partial Delay in New ERISA Claims Review and Appeal Regulations
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.10.01
On July 9th, the Department of Labor announced a delay (66 Fed. Reg. 35886) in the implementation date of the new ERISA claims review and appeals regulations issued November 21, 2000. Previously, the new ERISA regulations were going to be effective for all group health claims filed on or after January 1, 2002. Per the July 9th regulatory change, the new ERISA regulations will apply to group health claims filed on or after the first day of the first plan year beginning on or after July 1, 2002, but in no event, later than January 1, 2003. Consequently, for ERISA group plans with a renewal date between July 1, 2002 and December 31, 2002, the appeals process for those groups must be implemented by their renewal date. For all other groups (i.e., groups with a renewal date between January 1, 2002 and June 30, 2002), health plans must have the appeals process implemented by January 1, 2003.
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
