Ehlmann v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Texas, 198 F.3d 552 (5^th Cir. 2000) - In April 1997, Mary Ehlmann and other Plan members sued the defendant HMOs (collectively "Kaiser") under ERISA, alleging that Kaiser breached its statutory fiduciary duties to act solely in the interests of, and for the benefit of, the members.  Specifically, Ehlmann claimed that Kaiser had a duty to disclose its financial incentive or bonus arrangements between the HMO’s and their contracting physicians—which Ehlmann claims harm patients by causing physicians to keep usage of health care, referrals, and testing to a minimum.  Ehlmann also alleged that Kaiser made misleading representations to ERISA plan members, and there were conflicts of interests between the HMOs’ ERISA fiduciary duties and their drive for health plan profits.

This court found that ERISA contains numerous provisions detailing an HMO's disclosure duties.  Nowhere does ERISA impose a requirement that HMOs disclose their physician compensation schemes.  The plaintiff’s arguments that 29 U.S.C. §  1104  implicated a broad duty to disclose applicable in this case did not persuade the court.  That section contains the general requirement that a fiduciary  "discharge his duties with respect to a plan solely in the interests of the plan participants and beneficiaries" and for the "exclusive purpose of ... providing benefits to participants ... and defraying reasonable expenses of administering the plan."  29 U.S.C. §  1104.  This court noted that under the rule of statutory construction that the specific language in a statute rules the general, it should not add to the specific disclosure requirements that ERISA already provides.

This court then dismissed without prejudice Ehlmann's conflict of interest and misrepresentation claims since plaintiff did not properly plead them as claims separate from the dismissed duty-to-disclose claim.