Search for: "Aetna Health Inc" Results 161 - 180 of 191
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Jul 2015, 9:07 am by Marty Lederman
 First, a quick note on the government's new final rules regarding the religious accommodation (including its extension to some for-profit employers such as Hobby Lobby, Inc.). [read post]
7 Dec 2017, 9:30 pm by Sarah Madigan
CVS Health announced plans to acquire Aetna Inc. for $69 billion. [read post]
2 Aug 2018, 9:30 pm by Sarah Madigan
Department of Justice to block the proposed merger of CVS Health Corporation and Aetna, Inc., saying the deal “raises a number of competitive concerns for California health insurance and healthcare consumers. [read post]
19 Sep 2013, 9:53 am by Bexis
Pfizer, Inc., 712 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2013), Aetna, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Jun 2008, 12:33 am
Aetna Settles Federal Class Action Seeking Health Coverage for Eating Disorders New Jersey Law Journal Aetna has agreed to pay $250,000 in reimbursements to up to 100 New Jersey policyholders whose eating disorder claims were denied and to liberalize its coverage for many future claimants. [read post]
9 Jan 2014, 1:37 pm
  [W]e must review the record in light of these obvious information costs”); Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. [read post]
18 Oct 2008, 11:33 pm
. *** American Directional Boring, Inc., d/b/a ADB Utility Contractors, Inc. (14-CA-27386, et al.; 353 NLRB No. 21) St. [read post]
An example of an unmitigable OCI was presented in Aetna Government Health Plans, Inc., B-254397 et al., Jul. 27, 1995, 95-2 CPD ¶ 129. [read post]
5 Jan 2014, 7:55 pm by Marty Lederman
  Little Sisters argues alternatively that even if Christian Brothers declines to offer contraceptive coverage, LS might be required to provide its certification to another third-party administrator that might not share Christian Brothers' religious objection--Express Scripts, Inc., which apparently provides some kind of pharmaceutical claim administrative services. [read post]
2 Jul 2012, 11:57 am
  This case marks a departure from federal district court decisions[1] which have denied MAOs (and Medicare-substitute health maintenance organizations) a federal independent right to sue primary payers, and in some cases, indicated that MAOs should seek potential remedies in state court based on a contractual claim and/or conflict preemption principles. [read post]
2 Jul 2012, 11:57 am
  This case marks a departure from federal district court decisions[1] which have denied MAOs (and Medicare-substitute health maintenance organizations) a federal independent right to sue primary payers, and in some cases, indicated that MAOs should seek potential remedies in state court based on a contractual claim and/or conflict preemption principles. [read post]