Travis Software Official Blog

Most COBRA issues that result in litigation are settled prior to trial, and in those cases there is no public record of a judge’s rulings. A recent COBRA-related case actually went to trial and the ruling issued by a Federal District judge confirmed that the letters generated by Travis’ systems were “precise” and “unambiguous.” The case is Ratcliff v. Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., 2010WL 2814418 (W.D. La., July 16, 2010).

The facts of the case were that a qualified beneficiary was terminated from continuation coverage in late 2007 because of non-payment of premium. The qualified beneficiary sued for reinstatement in the plan, claiming that she had been erroneously terminated and that the COBRA-related letters sent to her had been “misleading” and “ambiguous and misrepresentative of the actual payment schedule” for COBRA premiums due.

The COBRA administrator for the employer in this case was a TravisCobra user at the time (has since migrated to WebCOBRA On Demand) and utilized the COBRA Election Notice packet generated by both systems, which includes a “Premium Computation Form” to describe when premiums are due during the QB’s enrollment period. The Premium Computation Form is unique to our systems and has been in use since TravisCobra was first released in 1986 and since WebCOBRA was unveiled in 2004.

The Court, in its ruling, disputed the plaintiff’s claim and denied reinstatement to the Plan, saying that the election notice packet (focusing on the Premium Computation Form) explained the QB’s obligations for premium payment in “precise, unambiguous terms.”

Travis has always tried to generate clear and concise communications from our COBRA systems, and it was heartening to receive confirmation that our letters satisfy COBRA requirements and to see a Federal judge agree that our letters are “precise” and “unambiguous.”