Bruce F. Botsford, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, Inc.; Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, Defendants-appellants, 319 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2003)
Annotate this CaseFiled December 23, 2002
Amended February 10, 2003
Anthony F. Shelley, Miller & Chevalier, Chartered, Washington, D.C., for the appellants.
Michael J. Lilly, Berg, Lilly & Tollefsen, P.C., Bozeman, Montana, for the appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana; Donald W. Molloy, Chief District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. CV-00-00119-DWM.
Before TROTT, NELSON, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The Opinion filed December 23, 2002, slip op. 1, is amended as follows:
At slip op. page 10, second paragraph, line 8, after the sentence "Thus, Congress wished to create a cost-efficient, comprehensive form of medical insurance for federal employees." add the following footnote:
As a result, FEHBA clearly "relates to the business of insurance," triggering the express statutory exception to the states' traditional right to regulate insurance under Section 2(b) of the McCarran-Ferguson Act. See 15 U.S.C. § 1012(b); see also Humana, Inc. v. Forsyth, 525 U.S. 299, 306, 119 S. Ct. 710, 142 L. Ed. 2d 753 (1999) (noting that, under this provision, "when Congress enacts a law specifically relating to the business of insurance, that law controls").
With these amendments, the panel has voted unanimously to deny the petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc.
The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35.
The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
