Believe it or not, the Supreme Court of the United States just decided whether “to have ‘actual knowledge’ of a piece of information, one must in fact be aware of it.” The Court said “yes,” and it was unanimous. Most non-lawyers (and even some lawyers) would probably be surprised that this issue was even being debated. But it was a question that had divided the lower courts, with the Sixth Circuit ruling that “actual knowledge” did not require actually seeing or reading a document that was provided. The Supreme Court agreed with the six other circuits that had concluded that “actual knowledge” means what it says. The Court’s opinion potentially holds a silver lining for defendants though when it comes to class certification.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Decision on ERISA Statute of Limitations May Help Defendants Defeat Class Certification

In Ariana M. v. Humana Health Plan of Texas, Inc., No. 18-20700, 2019 WL 5866677 (5th Cir. Nov. 8, 2019), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a plaintiff’s petition for attorneys’ fees under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g).  This case concerns Humana Health Plan of Texas, Inc.’s denial of benefits for hospitalization to treat an eating disorder.  On a prior appeal, Ariana M. v. Humana Health Plan of Texas, Inc., 884 F.3d 246 (5th Cir. 2018) (en banc) (“Ariana I”), the Fifth Circuit concluded that the District Court erred by conducting a deferential review of the claim decision, that it remanded the case for a de novo review of Humana’s decision.

On remand and de novo review, the District Court found Humana had not erred and entered summary judgment in Humana’s favor.  Nonetheless, Ariana filed a fee petition, asserting that her success in Ariana I in convincing the appellate court to change the standard of review and remand her case entitled her to fees regardless of whether she ultimately won her claim for benefits.  The District Court denied her petition.


Continue Reading Remand Directing Change in Standard of Judicial Review Is Not Sufficient Success on the Merits to Support Attorneys’ Fee Award

Wilderness therapy, also referred to as outdoor behavioral healthcare, is a treatment modality that uses expeditions into the wilderness as a means of addressing behavioral and mental health issues. Claims that health plans pay for wilderness therapy have been denied for various reasons, including the lack of accreditation of the program or licensing of the providers, or that the treatment is not medically necessary.

In the majority of recent wilderness therapy coverage suits, plaintiffs allege wilderness program exclusions violate the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (“Parity Act”). Several recent district court decisions provide guidance on whether the criteria used to deny coverage of “wilderness programs” may be considered a potential Parity Act violation.
Continue Reading Successful Pleading Challenges to Parity Act Claims Regarding Wilderness Treatment

In Eden Surgical Ctr. v. Cognizant Tech. Sols. Corp., No. 16-56422, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 10597 (9th Cir., Apr. 26, 2018), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court’s Order dismissing the Complaint of an out-of-network healthcare provider attempting to pursue its patient’s rights under an ERISA plan based on an assignment of benefits. The defendant health plan’s claim administrator, Aetna, determined that benefits were not payable under the plan because the patient had not satisfied the plan’s deductible. Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of its patient challenging that benefit determination. The Ninth Circuit found that the plaintiff’s Complaint was properly dismissed by the district court because the patient’s health benefit plan did not permit assignments.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Rejects Arguments Challenging the Enforceability of an ERISA Plan Anti-Assignment Provision

In Ariana M. v. Humana Health Plan of Tex., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5227, *5, 2018 WL 1096980 (March 1, 2018) (“Ariana M. II”), a majority of judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in an en banc decision, recently overturned its quarter century old holding in Pierre v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, 932 F.2d 1552 (5th Cir. 1991), which held that the factual determinations of ERISA benefit plan claim administrators are entitled to deference, regardless of whether the plan includes a grant of discretionary authority. Under Pierre, the Fifth Circuit has long held that such factual determinations can only be overturned if they are found to be arbitrary and capricious. In overturning its holding in Pierre, the Fifth Circuit joined nine sister circuits in ruling that all aspects of ERISA benefit denials will be reviewed de novo unless the governing plan delegates discretionary authority to the claim administrator.
Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Joins Sister Circuits by Overruling Default Deferential Standard of Review

The Ninth Circuit affirmed two district court judgments dismissing ERISA actions brought by health care providers in DB Healthcare v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona, No. 14-16518, and Advanced Women’s Health Center v. Anthem Blue Cross Life & Health Insurance Co., No. 14-16612. The health care providers’ argument was two-fold:  (1) health care providers were “beneficiaries” under Section 502(a) of ERISA, and thus could bring suit directly under ERISA; and (2) the plaintiffs in these cases could bring derivative claims under ERISA because the subscribers had assigned their claims under the plans to the plaintiffs. The Court denied both these claims.

Consistent with the Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits, the Ninth Circuit held that medical providers were not “beneficiaries” under Section 502(a) of ERISA and therefore could not bring suit directly under ERISA. A “beneficiary” is defined as “a person designated by a participant, or by the terms of an employee benefit plan, who is or may become entitled to a benefit thereunder.” The Court noted that the term “benefit” referred to “the specific advantages provided to covered employees, as a consequence of their employment, for particular purposes connected to alleviating various life contingencies.” The right to payment for medical services was not a “benefit” under the plan. Therefore, health care providers are not ERISA “beneficiaries” and may not sue under ERISA to recover payments due for services rendered or to otherwise enforce the statute.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Denies Health Care Providers’ ERISA Claims