Injury or Sickness, other than mental or nervous disorders, the Plan will cover expenses to the maximum shown on the Schedule of Coverage.... ” (Exhibit A, p. 17). The document seems to say that the plan will cover certain costs that were incurred because of injury or sickness. The real dilemma rears its head in cases like this — when an employer modifies a héalth benefit plan and the beneficiary already suffers from a condition that would be expected, absent any change, to entitle her to benefits for future medical treatment. See McGann v. H & H Music Co., 946 F.2d 401, 405 n. 5 (5th Cir.1991) (upholding the amendment as to future benefits, but noting that the plaintiff had been reimbursed for all expenses incurred before the effective date of the amendment); Wheeler, 62 F.3d at 640 (<HOLDING>). The difficulty concerns trying “to reconcile
holding employer thirdparty beneficiary could compel arbitration holding that a hospital could not be an erisa beneficiary holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant holding that erisa permits suits to recover benefits only against the plan as an entity and thus the beneficiary had erred by suing her exhusbands employer and plan administrator when proper party would have been the benefits plan itself holding that where employer had amended health plan to exclude a certain course of treatment amendment could not be applied to beneficiary who had already begun that treat ment