Sie sind auf Seite 1von 18
 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSTENTH CIRCUITSHARON PITMAN, wife of GailPitman, Deceased,Plaintiff-Appellee,v.BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELDOF OKLAHOMA, individually and asTrade Name of GROUP HEALTHINSURANCE OF OKLAHOMA, INC.,Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 98-5034 & 99-5197(D.C. No. 92-CV-451-E)(N.D. Okla.)ORDER Filed July 7, 2000Before
 BALDOCK 
,
PORFILIO
, and
EBEL
, Circuit Judges.This matter is before the court on appellant’s petition for rehearing filedJune 5, 2000. The petition for rehearing is granted for the sole purpose of deleting footnote eight. The petition is denied in all other respects. A revisedopinion is attached to this order.ENTERED FOR THE COURTPatrick Fisher, ClerkBy:Keith NelsonDeputy Clerk
 
 *After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determinedunanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of thisappeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause therefore isordered submitted without oral argument.
F I L E D
United States Court of AppealsTenth Circuit
JUL 7 2000
PATRICK FISHER 
Clerk PUBLISHUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSTENTH CIRCUIT
SHARON PITMAN, wife of GailPitman, Deceased,Plaintiff-Appellee,v.BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELDOF OKLAHOMA, individually and asTrade Name of GROUP HEALTHINSURANCE OF OKLAHOMA, INC.,Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 98-5034 & 99-5197
Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Northern District of Oklahoma (D.C. No. 92-CV-451-E)
Submitted on the briefs:
*
Donald M. Bingham and Karen E. Langdon of Riggs, Abney, Neal, Turpen,Orbison & Lewis, Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Mark E. Schmidtke, of Ebenstein &Schmidtke Consultants, Valparaiso, Indiana, for Defendant-Appellant.Sandy S. McMath of Sandy S. McMath & Associates, P.A., Little Rock, Arkansas,for Plaintiff-Appellee.
 
- 2 -Before
 BALDOCK 
,
PORFILIO
, and
EBEL
, Circuit Judges.
EBEL
, Circuit Judge.This appeal arises out of a dispute over the provisions of an employeewelfare benefits plan. Insurer Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Oklahoma (“BlueCross”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of one of its policyholders, Gail Pitman. Pitman claims that Blue Cross, as both the insurerand administrator of a health benefits plan, breached its duty under the plan to payfor high-dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow transplant,(“HDC/ABMT”), a procedure used to treat a form of cancer, multiple myeloma. Blue Cross contends that it has no obligation to pay for the procedure because thetreatment is excluded under an amendment to Pitman’s policy. We hold that BlueCross operated under a conflict of interest; that the policy unambiguouslyexcluded the autologous bone marrow transplant; and that Blue Cross did notcarry its burden of demonstrating that high-dose chemotherapy fell within anexclusionary clause. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirmin part and reverse in part.

Ihre Neugier belohnen

Alles, was Sie lesen wollen.
Jederzeit. Überall. Auf jedem Gerät.
Keine Verpflichtung. Jederzeit kündbar.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505