Justia Insurance Law Opinion Summaries

Allstate Insurance Company petitioned for review of a court of appeals' judgment that reversed the dismissal of a breach of assignment claim brought by Medical Lien Management (MLM). The district court effectively construed MLM's Lien and Security Agreement with a motor vehicle accident victim (upon which the underlying complaint was premised), as failing to assign the victim's right to the proceeds of his personal injury lawsuit against Allstate's insured. The court of appeals found a valid assignment to MLM all rights to the future proceeds from the personal injury claim in an amount equal to the costs of medical services paid for by MLM, as well as a sufficient allegation in the complaint of an enforceable obligation by Allstate to pay the assigned sums to MLM. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that the court of appeals erred in finding the purported assignment in this case. View "Allstate Insurance Co. v. Medical Lien Management, Inc." on Justia Law

Across the state, plaintiffs were filing complaints against health care providers from whom they sought treatment following automobile accidents and with whom their health care insurers had contracted reimbursement rates for the services rendered. At issue was the legality of these providers' policy of collecting or attempting to collect the undiscounted rate from the insured if a liability insurer may be liable, implemented through the filing of medical liens against plaintiffs' lawsuits and settlements pursuant to the health care provider lien statute. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the appellate courts of this state on the issue of whether a class action is the superior method for adjudicating actions brought pursuant to the Health Care Consumer Billing and Disclosure Protection Act ("Balance Billing Act"). After review, the Court found plaintiffs in the Third Circuit Court of Appeal proceeded as a class, while plaintiffs in the Second Circuit Court of Appeal were denied class certification. After reviewing the record and the applicable law, the Supreme Court found the class action was superior to any other available method for a fair and efficient adjudication of the common controversy over the disputed billing and lien practices. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the Second Circuit. Finding all other requirements for class certification properly met, the Court reinstated the judgment of the trial court. View "Baker v. PHC-Minden, L.P." on Justia Law

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) creates “navigators,” to assist consumers in purchasing health insurance from exchanges, 42 U.S.C. 18031(i), and authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to establish standards for navigators and exchanges. HHS regulations recognize: federal navigators, certified application counselors (CACs), and non-navigator assistance personnel. They conduct many of the same activities, but federal navigators have more extensive duties. Plaintiffs, federally-certified counselor designated organizations, employ CACs. The federal government established a Missouri Federally Facilitated Exchange. The Health Insurance Marketplace Innovation Act (HIMIA), Mo. Rev. Stat. 376.2000, regulates “person[s] that, for compensation, provide[] information or services in connection with eligibility, enrollment, or program specifications of any health benefit exchange.” Regulatory provisions dictate what state navigators and cannot do. Plaintiffs challenged: the definition of state navigators; three substantive provisions; and penalty provisions. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, finding that the ACA preempted HIMIA. The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part, finding likelihood of success in challenges to HIMIA requirements that: state navigators refrain from providing information about health insurance plans not offered by the exchange; that in some circumstances, the navigator must advise consultation with a licensed insurance producer regarding private coverage; and that CACs provide information about different health insurance plans and clarify the distinctions. The court vacated the preliminary injunction, holding that ACA does not entirely preempt HIMIA. View "St. Louis Effort For AIDS v. Huff" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs' complaint alleged that two groups of defendants, (1) Premera, Premera Blue Cross, and Life Wise Health Plan of Washington (collectively Premera) and (2) the Washington Alliance for Healthcare Insurance Trust and its trustee, F. Bentley Lovejoy (collectively WAHIT), colluded and made false and misleading representations to the plaintiffs that induced the plaintiffs to purchase health insurance policies under false pretenses. Plaintiff-policyholders claimed that Premera and WAHIT violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The plaintiffs requested only two specific forms of damages: (1) for the "unfair business practices and excessive overcharges for premiums," the plaintiffs requested "the sum of the excess premiums paid to the defendants;" and (2) "[i]f the surplus is excessive and unreasonable," the plaintiffs asserted that "the amount of the excess surplus should be refunded to the subscribers who have paid the high premiums causing the excess." On Premera and WAHIT's motion, the trial court dismissed the Policyholders' suit in its entirety based on the filed rate, primary jurisdiction, and exhaustion of remedies doctrines. Specifically, the trial court dismissed all claims of class B (small group) and class C (individuals) pursuant to CR 12(b )( 6) and dismissed all claims of class A (large group) on summary judgment under CR 56. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court in relation to certain of the Policyholders' CPA claims. Because awarding the specific damages requested by the plaintiffs would require a court to inappropriately substitute its judgment for that of the Office of the Insurance Commissioner (OIC), the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims. View "McCarthy Fin., Inc. v. Premera" on Justia Law

Wellmark, Inc., an Iowa-based health insurer that belongs to the national Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) network, contracted with health care providers in Iowa to provide services at certain reimbursement rates. Wellmark agreed to make those rates available both to self-insured Iowa plans that it administers and to out-of-state BCBS affiliates when those entities provide coverage for services provided in Iowa. Plaintiffs, a number of Iowa chiropractors, sued Wellmark, claiming that Wellmark had abused monopoly power in violation of the Iowa Competition Law. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of some of the chiropractors’ antitrust claims and remanded on Plaintiffs’ remaining claims. On remand, Plaintiffs stipulated that their remaining antitrust claims regarding the agreements between Wellmark and both the self-insuring employers and the out-of-state BCBS affiliates were being asserted on a per se theory. The district court rejected Plaintiffs’ per se theories and entered summary judgment for Wellmark. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Wellmark’s arrangements with the self-insured employers and out-of-state BCBS licensees did not amount to per se violations of Iowa antitrust law. View "Mueller v. Wellmark, Inc." on Justia Law

From 1995-2009, Johnson worked for CRE. In the last three years, Johnson worked from home, 8 hours a day at a computer. Johnson was covered under CRE’s United disability insurance policy. In 1999, Johnson was diagnosed with fibromyalgia. In 2004, she underwent neck surgery for nerve injuries. On the day she resigned, Johnson visited MacDonald, her primary care physician, who diagnosed anxiety, depression, fibromyalgia, and chronic pain. Johnson completed a short-term disability form. MacDonald completed an Attending Physician’s Statement. United denied the application. Based on the recommendations of its doctor, United denied Johnson’s appeal. Johnson sought long-term disability benefits. MacDonald completed a Physician’s Statement that imposed multiple limitations. United denied the claim. Johnson appealed. United referred Johnson’s file and medical records to Boscardin, an orthopedic surgeon, who determined that, although Johnson experienced chronic pain in her neck and spine, Johnson’s complaints were not supported by “conclusive, objective evidence.” McClellan, Johnson’s surgeon, responded that he “[o]verall” agreed with Boscardin. United denied the appeal. Johnson sued under ERISA. The district court granted Johnson summary judgment, finding that United failed to consider Johnson’s condition as a whole. The Eighth Circuit reversed, finding the denial supported by substantial evidence. View "Johnson v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Three patients, who were injured in unrelated motor vehicle accidents, were all treated at the Regional Medical Center at Memphis (Hospital). In each case, either the patient’s insurance company or TennCare paid the Hospital the full amount of the adjusted charges for their case. However, the Hospital refused to release the lien it had perfected under the Tennessee Hospital Lien Act as it awaited recovery from the third-party tortfeasors the full, unadjusted amount of the hospital lien. The patients filed suit. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the Court of Appeals reversed, determining that the hospital could not maintain its lien because each of the patients’ debts had been extinguished. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) except for the unpaid co-pays and deductibles, which are a patient’s responsibility, neither the Act nor the Hospital’s contracts with the patients’ insurance companies authorized the Hospital to maintain its lien after the patients’ insurance company paid the adjusted bill; and (2) one of the patients in this case had not extinguished her debt to the Hospital and was therefore not entitled to have the lien against her extinguished. View "West v. Shelby County Healthcare Corp." on Justia Law

In 1999, Randall Simms was injured while on the job. Thereafter, Simms became totally disabled and, since 2006, had been receiving total disability benefits. Dr. Michael Schabacker was Simms’ workers’ compensation doctor from 2004 through 2007. In 2010, Simms filed a complaint against Schabacker and his employer, alleging that Schabacker had unlawfully disseminated his private, confidential healthcare information to a law enforcement officer without Simms' permission. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Schabacker. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding (1) Schabacker was statutorily authorized to release relevant healthcare information regarding Simms to the workers’ compensation insurer, and (2) Schabacker did not knowingly assist a law enforcement agency when he discussed Simms’ medical condition with the workers’ compensation insurer. View "Simms v. Schabacker" on Justia Law

Appellant, a six-year-old boy diagnosed with an autism-spectrum disorder, was receiving applied behavior analysis (“ABA”), a type of autism-related service, in his home. ABA was covered by his family’s insurance policy with Appellee Independence Blue Cross. Appellant’s family requested that Blue Cross cover similar ABA services to be provided at Appellant’s elementary school in 2009. The insurer denied the request, pointing to a place-of-service exclusion in the policy which specified that no services would be covered if the care was provided at certain types of locations, including schools. This decision was unsuccessfully appealed internally. The dispute was then submitted to an independent external review agency appointed by the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance. In December 2009, that agency upheld the denial based on the policy’s place-of-service exclusion. Meanwhile, the General Assembly passed Act 62 of 2008, which, inter alia, required that health insurance policies provide coverage for the treatment of autism spectrum disorders. In 2010, Appellant filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in the form of a ruling that the policy’s place-of-service exclusion is null and void under Act 62, as well as an order directing the insurer to cover Appellant’s medically necessary treatments. Blue Cross filed responsive pleadings and Appellant requested judgment on the pleadings. The court ultimately rejected the argument that the policy’s place-of-service exclusion was a general exclusion as contemplated by Section 764h(c). Thus, it held that, under Section 764h(a), Blue Cross was required to provide coverage for school-based ABA services during the relevant time period. The common pleas court ordered the insurer to “take action consistent with this decision.” On appeal, the Superior Court, sua sponte, questioned whether the common pleas court should have entertained the appeal under Act 62. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court allowed review to consider whether individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders have the right to judicial review of a denial of insurance coverage, considering the language of Act 62. "Here, we are faced with a situation in which a litigant sought a declaration of his rights under a legislative enactment, a task over which the common pleas court could have exercised jurisdiction, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgments Act, in response to the correct form of pleading. Furthermore, the complaint’s asserted basis for jurisdiction was deficient only because of the confusion created by an apparent drafting mistake by our General Assembly. Neither the court nor the defendant Insurer realized that anything was amiss in this regard and, if they had, Appellant could presumably have made any necessary formal corrections. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the common pleas court was permitted to reach the substantive claim forwarded in Appellant’s pleadings. It follows that the intermediate court should not have reversed the order of that court by sua sponte pointing to the language of Section 764h(k)(2) as a bar to Appellant’s ability to seek relief in a judicial forum, without first evaluating whether the common pleas court’s assessment of the substantive question could be justified on some other basis." View "Burke v. Independence Blue Cross" on Justia Law

In 1989, the Washington Legislature mandated coverage for neurodevelopmental therapies (neurodevelopmental therapies or NOT) (speech, occupational, and physical therapy) in employer-sponsored group plans for children under age seven (RCW 48.44.450). In 2005, the legislature enacted the mental health parity act, which mandated coverage for "mental health services" (RCW 48.44.341). The two named plaintiffs in this case, O.S.T. and L.H. were young children diagnosed with some form of neurodevelopmental issues. Both plaintiffs at some point were insured under health policies issued by Regence BlueShield that contained blanket exclusions for neurodevelopmental therapies. Regence BlueShield did not cover O.S.T.'s therapies, so O.S.T.'s parents paid for the services. It was unclear whether Regence BlueShield denied any of L.H.'s claims. Plaintiffs filed a class-action complaint, alleging breach of contract; declaratory relief; violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19.86 RCW; and seeking injunctive relief. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs in late 2012, holding that "any provisions contained in Regence BlueShield policies issued and delivered to Plaintiffs O.S.T. and L.H. on or after January 1, 2008 that exclude coverage of neurodevelopmental therapies regardless of medical necessity are declared invalid, void and unenforceable by Defendant and its agents." The Court of Appeals granted discretionary review, and the Supreme Court accepted transfer. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the statutes did not conflict, and that neurodevelopmental therapies could constitute "mental health services" if the therapies are medically necessary to treat a mental disorder identified in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th rev. ed. 2000) (DSM-IV-TR). Therefore, the blanket exclusions of neurodevelopmental therapies in the plaintiffs' health contracts were void and unenforceable.View "O.S.T. v. Regence BlueShield" on Justia Law