Greg Ganske: “I have here a ``Dear Colleague'' that was sent out by the gentleman from Georgia on August 1. It says, ``An explanation…”

“I have here a ``Dear Colleague'' that was sent out by the gentleman from Georgia on August 1. It says, ``An explanation of how ERISA preemption works.'' It says, ``Under H.R. 2563,'' that is the base bill, the Ganske-Dingell bill, ``if an insurer injures you by denying or delaying medically necessary care, you can go to State court under common law to hold the insurer accountable.'' That has been a fundamental part of the bill. So it surprised me greatly when I read on page 20 of the Norwood amendment these words: ``A civil action brought in any State court under section'' such and such ``against any party other than the employer plan, plan's sponsor or any other entity, i.e., dedicated decision-maker, arising from a medically reviewable determination may not be removed from any district court.'' What this basically means is that all of those groups can go into Federal, and that gets to then this interesting part of the Norwood bill. I mean, this could be interpreted as unconstitutional under Pegram v. Hedrick. But then, at the end, we have a nonseverability clause, so that the entire enforcement section becomes inoperative if one section in the Norwood amendment is unconstitutional. Mr. Chairman, I am just amazed at this. I know the gentleman from Georgia in the past has fought against putting nonseverability clauses in.”