Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

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

Angela Midthun-Hensen and Tony Hensen sought insurance coverage for therapies for their daughter K.H.'s autism from Group Health Cooperative between 2017 and 2019. The insurer denied coverage, citing a lack of evidence supporting the effectiveness of speech therapy for a child K.H.'s age and sensory-integration therapy for autism at any age. The family's employer-sponsored plan only covered "evidence-based" treatments. After several medical reviews and appeals upheld the insurer's decision, the parents sued, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and state law regarding autism coverage.The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin ruled in favor of the insurer, finding no violations of state law or ERISA. The plaintiffs then focused on their claim that the insurer's actions violated the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA), which mandates equal treatment limitations for mental and physical health benefits. They argued that the insurer applied the "evidence-based" requirement more stringently to autism therapies than to chiropractic care, which they claimed lacked scientific support.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court found that the insurer's reliance on medical literature, which varied in its recommendations based on patient age, was permissible under the Parity Act. The court also noted that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the insurer's treatment limitations for mental health benefits were more restrictive than those applied to "substantially all" medical and surgical benefits, as required by the statute. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' focus on a single medical benefit was insufficient to prove a violation of the Parity Act. View "Midthun-Hensen v. Group Health Cooperative of South Central, Inc.," on Justia Law

Kelsey Weyer applied for long-term disability benefits under a policy issued by Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company through her employer. Weyer suffers from multiple medical conditions, including chronic fatigue syndrome, Lyme disease, migraines, neurocognitive disorder, and others. The policy defines "Totally Disabled" differently for the first twenty-four months and thereafter. Initially, it means being unable to perform the duties of one's regular occupation, and after twenty-four months, it means being unable to perform any occupation. Reliance Standard initially approved Weyer’s claim and paid benefits for twenty-four months but later terminated them, arguing she could perform sedentary jobs and that her anxiety and depression contributed to her disability.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota reviewed the case and ruled in favor of Weyer. The court found that the evidence did not support Reliance Standard’s claim that Weyer’s mental health issues contributed to her inability to work. It also held that Weyer was totally disabled under the policy’s "Any Occupation" standard, based on evidence from Weyer’s physicians and independent reviews.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, finding no clear error in its determination that Weyer was totally disabled and that her physical conditions alone rendered her unable to work. The appellate court also agreed that the mental health disorders did not contribute to her total disability under the policy’s terms. The court applied a "but-for" causation standard, concluding that Weyer’s physical conditions independently caused her total disability, thus the mental health limitation clause did not apply. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of Weyer. View "Weyer v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company" on Justia Law

The case involves the United States of America, et al. ex rel. Michael Angelo and MSP WB, LLC (Relators-Appellants) against Allstate Insurance Company, et al. (Defendants-Appellees). The relators alleged that Allstate Insurance violated the False Claims Act by avoiding its obligations under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. They claimed that Allstate failed to report or inaccurately reported to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) information regarding its beneficiaries, which led to Allstate failing to reimburse Medicare for auto-accident-related medical costs incurred by beneficiaries insured by Allstate.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed the case with prejudice, deeming the relators' second amended complaint deficient in numerous respects. The relators then moved for reconsideration, which the district court denied. They also filed a motion to amend or correct under Rule 59(e), asking the district court to amend its judgment to dismiss the case without prejudice to allow them to file another amended complaint. The district court denied the motion on all grounds.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the relators failed to state a claim for a violation of the False Claims Act. The court noted that the relators did not provide sufficient facts demonstrating that Allstate had an "established duty" to pay money or property owed to the government. The court also found that the relators did not demonstrate Allstate's understanding that its conduct violated its obligations under federal law. Furthermore, the court found that the relators' claim for conspiracy also failed as they did not provide any specific details regarding the alleged plan or an agreement to execute the plan. The court also affirmed the district court's decision to deny the relators leave to amend their complaint again. View "United States ex rel. Angelo v. Allstate Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The case involves Bristol SL Holdings, Inc., the successor-in-interest to Sure Haven, Inc., a defunct drug rehabilitation and mental health treatment center, and Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company and Cigna Behavioral Health, Inc. Bristol alleged that Sure Haven's calls to Cigna verifying out-of-network coverage and seeking authorization to provide health services created independent contractual obligations. Cigna, however, denied payment based on fee-forgiving, a practice prohibited by the health plans. Bristol brought state law claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel against Cigna.The district court initially dismissed Bristol’s claims, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, holding that Bristol had derivative standing to sue for unpaid benefits as Sure Haven’s successor-in-interest. On remand, the district court granted Cigna’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempted Bristol’s state law claims.On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Bristol’s state law claims were preempted by ERISA because they had both a “reference to” and an “impermissible connection with” the ERISA plans that Cigna administered. The court reasoned that Bristol’s claims were not independent of an ERISA plan because they concerned the denial of reimbursement to patients who were covered under such plans. The court also held that allowing liability on Bristol’s state law claims would interfere with nationally uniform plan administration, a central matter of plan administration. View "Bristol SL Holdings, Inc. v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co." on Justia Law