Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee (BlueCross) is an insurer and fiduciary for an ERISA-governed group health insurance plan. A plan member in New Hampshire sought coverage for fertility treatments, which BlueCross denied as the plan did not cover such treatments. The Commissioner of the New Hampshire Insurance Department initiated an enforcement action against BlueCross, alleging that the denial violated New Hampshire law, which mandates coverage for fertility treatments. BlueCross sought to enjoin the state regulatory action, arguing it conflicted with its fiduciary duties under ERISA.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee denied BlueCross's request for relief and granted summary judgment to the Commissioner. The court found that the Commissioner’s enforcement action was against BlueCross in its capacity as an insurer, not as a fiduciary, and thus was permissible under ERISA’s saving clause, which allows state insurance regulations to apply to insurers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Sixth Circuit held that the Commissioner’s action was indeed against BlueCross as an insurer, aiming to enforce New Hampshire’s insurance laws. The court noted that ERISA’s saving clause permits such state actions and that BlueCross could not use its fiduciary duties under ERISA to evade state insurance regulations. The court also referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in UNUM Life Insurance Co. of America v. Ward, which established that state insurance regulations are not preempted by ERISA when applied to insurers. Thus, the Sixth Circuit concluded that ERISA did not shield BlueCross from the New Hampshire regulatory action. View "BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee v. Nicolopoulos" on Justia Law

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and others filed a lawsuit against Michael LaRocca and his associated chiropractic clinics, alleging that the clinics submitted fraudulent insurance claims for services that were not medically necessary. The clinics, owned by LaRocca, were operating under an exemption from Florida's Health Care Clinic Act, which requires clinics to be licensed unless they are wholly owned by licensed health care practitioners who are legally responsible for compliance with all federal and state laws.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied State Farm's motion for partial summary judgment, rejecting the argument that LaRocca's failure to ensure compliance with all laws invalidated the clinics' exemption and rendered their charges noncompensable. The court found that the term "legally responsible" did not impose an affirmative duty on LaRocca to ensure compliance with all laws but rather indicated accountability for violations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the interpretation of "legally responsible" within the context of Florida's Health Care Clinic Act was a matter best decided by the Florida Supreme Court. The Eleventh Circuit certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court, seeking clarification on whether the term imposes an affirmative duty on clinic owners to ensure compliance with all federal and state laws to maintain their exemption status. The Eleventh Circuit deferred its decision pending the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation. View "State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. LaRocca" on Justia Law

Griffith Foods International and Sterigenics U.S. operated a medical supply sterilization plant in Willowbrook, Illinois, emitting ethylene oxide (EtO) over a 35-year period. In 2018, a report revealed high cancer rates in Willowbrook, allegedly due to these emissions. Griffith and Sterigenics faced over 800 lawsuits from residents claiming bodily injuries, including cancer, caused by the emissions. Griffith had obtained permits from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) for the plant's operation, which included EtO emissions.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reviewed the case. Griffith and Sterigenics sought declarations that National Union Fire Insurance Company had a duty to defend them under their commercial general liability (CGL) policies. The district court ruled in favor of Griffith and Sterigenics, determining that the pollution exclusion in the CGL policies did not apply because the emissions were authorized by IEPA permits. The court relied on the Illinois appellate decision in Erie Insurance Exchange v. Imperial Marble Corp., which found ambiguity in the pollution exclusion when emissions were permitted by regulatory authorities.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court acknowledged the importance of the pollution exclusion in CGL policies and the precedent set by the Illinois Supreme Court in American States Insurance Co. v. Koloms. The Seventh Circuit noted the conflicting interpretations between Koloms and Imperial Marble regarding the scope of the pollution exclusion. Given the significant implications for Illinois law and the insurance industry, the Seventh Circuit decided to certify the question to the Illinois Supreme Court to determine the relevance of regulatory permits in applying the pollution exclusion in CGL policies. View "Griffith Foods International Inc. v National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg" on Justia Law

Conduent State Healthcare, LLC (Conduent) was hired by the State of Texas to administer its Medicaid program. In 2012, Texas began investigating Conduent for allegedly helping orthodontics offices overbill for services. Texas sued several orthodontic providers in 2014, and the providers sued Conduent. Texas terminated its contract with Conduent and sued Conduent under the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act. Conduent was insured by AIG Specialty Insurance Company, ACE American Insurance Company, and Lexington Insurance Company, among others. The insurers provided defense coverage for the provider actions but denied coverage for the state action, claiming it involved fraudulent conduct excluded by the policies.The Superior Court of Delaware found that the insurers breached their duty to defend Conduent in the state action. The court also ruled that Conduent was relieved of its duties to cooperate and seek consent before settling with Texas due to the insurers' breach. The jury found that Conduent acted in bad faith and fraudulently arranged the settlement but did not collude with Texas or settle unreasonably. The Superior Court granted a new trial due to evidentiary issues and the jury's inconsistent verdicts.The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the Superior Court's rulings. It held that the insurers' breach of their duty to defend excused Conduent from its duties to cooperate and seek consent. The court also ruled that the policy's fraud exclusion did not bar indemnity coverage because the settlement was allocated to breach of contract damages. The court found that the evidentiary issues and the jury's inconsistent verdicts justified a new trial to prevent manifest injustice. View "AIG Specialty Insurance Company v. Conduent State Healthcare, LLC" on Justia Law

Julian Omidi and his business, Surgery Center Management, LLC (SCM), were involved in a fraudulent scheme called "Get Thin," which promised weight loss through Lap-Band surgery and other medical procedures. Omidi and SCM defrauded insurance companies by submitting false claims for reimbursement, including fabricated patient data and misrepresented physician involvement. The scheme recruited patients through a call center, pushing them towards expensive medical tests and procedures regardless of medical necessity.A grand jury indicted Omidi and SCM for mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, and related charges. After extensive pretrial litigation and a lengthy jury trial, both were convicted on all charges. The district court sentenced Omidi to 84 months in prison and fined SCM over $22 million. The government sought forfeiture of nearly $100 million, arguing that all proceeds from the Get Thin scheme were derived from fraud. The district court agreed, finding that even proceeds from legitimate procedures were indirectly the result of the fraudulent scheme.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's forfeiture judgment, holding that under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), all proceeds directly or indirectly derived from a health care fraud scheme must be forfeited. The court rejected the argument that only proceeds from fraudulent transactions should be forfeited, noting that the entire business was permeated with fraud. The court concluded that there is no "100% Fraud Rule" in forfeiture cases seeking proceeds of a fraud scheme, and all proceeds from the Get Thin scheme were subject to forfeiture. View "United States V. Surgery Center Management, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves a billing dispute between a group of emergency room physicians (plaintiff) and an insurance company (defendant). The dispute centers on the interpretation of Connecticut’s surprise billing law, which aims to protect insured individuals from high medical bills when they receive emergency care from out-of-network providers. The plaintiff contends that the law requires the defendant to fully reimburse them for emergency services and then collect any applicable cost-sharing amounts (deductibles, copayments) from the insured. The defendant argues that it can deduct the insured’s cost-sharing amounts from the reimbursement it pays to the plaintiff.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut dismissed the plaintiff’s stand-alone claims under the surprise billing law, concluding that the law does not create a private right of action. The court then certified three questions to the Connecticut Supreme Court: (1) whether a CUTPA claim can be maintained for conduct that violates the surprise billing law but not CUIPA, (2) whether the surprise billing law requires insurers to fully reimburse providers and then collect cost-sharing amounts from insureds, and (3) whether the defendant’s practice of deducting cost-sharing amounts from reimbursements violates the surprise billing law.The Connecticut Supreme Court held that Connecticut law does not recognize a cause of action under CUTPA for conduct that violates the surprise billing law but is not identified as an unfair insurance practice under CUIPA. The court also held that the surprise billing law does not require insurers to fully reimburse providers and then collect cost-sharing amounts from insureds. Instead, insurers can deduct the insured’s cost-sharing amounts from the reimbursement paid to the provider. Finally, the court concluded that the defendant’s practice of deducting cost-sharing amounts from reimbursements does not violate the surprise billing law. View "NEMS, PLLC v. Harvard Pilgrim Health Care of Connecticut, Inc." on Justia Law

Annette McEachin, a human resources manager, was seriously injured in a car accident in 2017 and subsequently filed a disability claim with Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company. Reliance approved her for long-term disability benefits, which were later extended after another car accident worsened her condition. McEachin underwent multiple surgeries and treatments for her physical injuries and also received treatment for mental health issues, including depression and anxiety, exacerbated by her son's suicide in 2019. Reliance paid her benefits for nearly four years but stopped payments in April 2021, concluding that her physical health had improved sufficiently for her to return to work.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan found that McEachin no longer had a physical disability as of April 2021 but ruled that her mental health disabilities entitled her to two more years of benefits. Both parties appealed the decision. Reliance argued that the district court misinterpreted the insurance policy, while McEachin contended that her physical disabilities persisted beyond April 2021.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that McEachin's physical disabilities alone justified her disability benefits until April 2021, meaning the 24-month mental health limitation did not apply until then. The court affirmed the district court's finding that McEachin's physical disabilities no longer rendered her totally disabled as of April 2021. However, the court vacated the district court's decision regarding the mental health benefits and remanded the case to consider whether McEachin's post-April 2021 medical evidence could toll the 24-month mental health limitation period, potentially extending her eligibility for benefits beyond April 2023. View "McEachin v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs M.S. and L.S. sought insurance coverage for mental health treatments for their child, C.S., under a health benefits plan provided by M.S.'s employer, Microsoft Corporation. The plan, administered by Premera Blue Cross, is subject to ERISA and the Parity Act. Premera denied the claim, stating the treatment was not medically necessary. Plaintiffs pursued internal and external appeals, which upheld the denial. Plaintiffs then sued in federal district court, alleging improper denial of benefits under ERISA, failure to produce documents in violation of ERISA’s disclosure requirements, and a Parity Act violation for applying disparate treatment limitations to mental health claims.The United States District Court for the District of Utah granted summary judgment to Defendants on the denial-of-benefits claim but ruled in favor of Plaintiffs on the Parity Act and ERISA disclosure claims. The court found that Defendants violated the Parity Act by using additional criteria for mental health claims and failed to disclose certain documents required under ERISA. The court awarded statutory penalties and attorneys’ fees to Plaintiffs.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the Parity Act claim, finding that Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the claim. The court reversed the district court’s ruling that Defendants violated ERISA by not disclosing the Skilled Nursing InterQual Criteria but affirmed the ruling regarding the failure to disclose the Administrative Services Agreement (ASA). The court upheld the statutory penalty for the ASA disclosure violation and affirmed the award of attorneys’ fees and costs to Plaintiffs. View "M.S. v. Premera Blue Cross" on Justia Law

Elizabeth Holt, a former insurance agent for Medicare Medicaid Advisors, Inc. (MMA), alleged that MMA and several insurance carriers (Aetna, Humana, and UnitedHealthcare) violated the False Claims Act (FCA). Holt claimed that MMA engaged in fraudulent practices, including falsifying agent certifications and violating Medicare marketing regulations, which led to the submission of false claims to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri dismissed Holt's complaint. The court found that no claims were submitted to the government, the alleged regulatory violations were not material to CMS’s contract with the carriers, and the complaint did not meet the particularity standard required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The court also denied Holt's motion for reconsideration, which introduced a fraudulent inducement theory and requested leave to amend the complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, agreeing that Holt's allegations did not meet the materiality requirement under the FCA. The court applied the materiality standard from Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, considering factors such as whether the government designated compliance as a condition of payment, whether the violations were minor or substantial, and whether the government continued to pay claims despite knowing of the violations. The court found that the alleged violations did not go to the essence of CMS’s contract with the carriers and were not material to the government's payment decisions.The Eighth Circuit also upheld the district court's denial of Holt's motion for reconsideration and request to amend the complaint, concluding that adding a fraudulent inducement claim would be futile given the immateriality of the alleged violations. View "United States ex rel. Holt v. Medicare Medicaid Advisors" on Justia Law

Nevada Health CO-OP, a health insurance provider, received two loans from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Affordable Care Act’s CO-OP program. These loans included a start-up loan and a solvency loan. In 2015, Nevada Health faced financial difficulties and was placed into receivership by the Nevada Commissioner of Insurance. CMS subsequently terminated the loan agreement and began offsetting payments owed to Nevada Health against the start-up loan debt.The United States Court of Federal Claims reviewed the case and granted summary judgment in favor of the Nevada Commissioner of Insurance, acting as the receiver for Nevada Health. The court found that the government improperly withheld statutory payments owed to Nevada Health under the ACA. The court also held that the government could not invoke 31 U.S.C. § 3728 to withhold these payments in the future.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court’s judgment that the government improperly withheld payments owed to Nevada Health. The court held that the loan agreement subordinated the government’s claim to those of policyholders and basic operating expenses, thus precluding the government from asserting offset rights to jump ahead of these senior creditors. However, the appellate court vacated the portion of the lower court’s order that addressed the government’s ability to invoke 31 U.S.C. § 3728, ruling that the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction by addressing this issue, which was not raised by the parties. View "Richardson v. United States" on Justia Law