Yale-New Haven Hospital v. Nicholls, et al., No. 13-4725 (2d Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on June 4, 2015.
Download PDF
13 4725 Yale New Haven Hospital v. Nicholls, et al. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2015 (Argued: October 16, 2014 Decided: January 22, 2016) Docket No. 13 4725 _____________________________________ Yale New Haven Hospital, Interpleader Plaintiff, v. Claire M. Nicholls, Defendant Cross Defendant Appellee, v. Barbara Nicholls, Defendant Cross Claimant Appellant. _____________________________________ Before: KEARSE, STRAUB, and WESLEY, Circuit Judges. A petition for panel rehearing having been made by Defendant Cross Claimant Appellant Barbara Nicholls, the petition is hereby DENIED. Judge Wesley dissents from the denial of panel rehearing in a separate opinion. KENNETH VOTRE, Votre & Associates, P.C., East Haven, CT, for Defendant Cross Claimant Appellant Barbara Nicholls. SUSAN E. NUGENT, Murphy & Nugent, LLC, New Haven, CT, for Defendant Cross Defendant Appellee Claire M. Nicholls. ORDER A petition for panel rehearing having been made by Defendant Cross Claimant Appellant Barbara Nicholls, the petition is hereby DENIED. Judge Wesley dissents from the denial of panel rehearing in a separate opinion. For the Court: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 2 WESLEY, Circuit Judge, dissenting from the denial of panel rehearing: I dissent from the denial of panel rehearing for the reasons stated in my opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in Yale-New Haven Hospital v. Nicholls, 788 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2015). Shortly before our decision in Nicholls, the Supreme Court of Virginia, over the vigorous dissent of three of its members, including the Chief Justice, upheld a state intermediate appellate court opinion that decided substantially the issue presented here. See Cowser-Griffin v. Griffin, 771 S.E.2d 660 (Va. 2015), cert. denied, No. 14-1531, 2016 WL 100359 (U.S. Jan. 11, 2016). The Virginia appellant then filed an unsuccessful petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, see 2015 WL 3918905 (U.S. June 24, 2015), which the Virginia appellee opposed principally on the ground that the posthumous qualified domestic relations order there assigned to an alternate payee payable lump-sum benefits, as opposed to annuity benefits, and thus no conflict existed between the decision of Supreme Court of Virginia and those of other state supreme courts or federal courts of appeals, see 2015 WL 7770869 (U.S. Nov. 10, 2015). 1 Without commenting on the merits of such a distinction, I would note that Nicholls squarely presents this important ERISA question in the context of annuity benefits. 2
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.
